NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

SESSION 2018-19

TRIMESTER V

CRIMINAL LAW- I PROJECT WORK

TOPIC: Dauwalal VS. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Submitted to:-

Prof. Divya Salim

Submitted by :-

Anushri Bhalavi

2018 (BALLB) 53
1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project has been prepared and submitted by Anushri
Bhalavi, pursuing her B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) at National Law Institute University,
Bhopal. This is in the fulfillment of the Criminal Law I course. This is also to
certify that this is her original project work and this has not been submitted to any
other university.

Date: 19th November, 2019

Signature of student: …………………………

Signature of professor: …………………………

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Acknowledgement
• Objective
• Methodology
• Introduction
• Facts of the case
• Decision of the case
• Critical analysis of the case
• Conclusion
• Bibliography

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my Criminal Law teacher, Professor Divya Salim for
providing me with the opportunity of working on this project. It was a great
learning experience and it helped in enhancing my research skills. Also, it helped
me in widening my knowledge and analysing criminal cases. I would also like to
thank the library ‘Gyanmandir’ for providing me resources essential for
completion of research.

4
Object
• To find out the facts of the case.
• Read the judgement of the case
• To understand the reasoning of the case.
• To critically analyse and conclude from the same.

Methodology
This project is based on doctrinal method.

5
INTRODUCTION

The project is a case study of the case Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan vs The State
Of Madhya Pradesh(2019)4 SCC 538. This case was basically an appeal by the
convicts of the same case which was previously filed on 24.02.1997. There were
17 accused out of which only four were considered originally accused by the court.
Those were Santosh Kumar, Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan, Manohar Verma and
Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Puneetram Verma (Accused Nos.6, 12, 13
and 16 respectively).

Facts of the case

• There are four prosecutor witnesses;

1. Pw1:Dr. A.D. Purena (who did post mortemof the deceased)
2. Pw2: Netram ( cousin of the deceased)
3. Pw3: Urmila ( widow of the deceased)
4. Pw4: Narender (11 y/o son of the deceased)

• In the case which was filed in 1997, it was stated that Pw2 filed an FIR
against 17 accused alleging them to have formed an unlawful assembly and
fatally injured his brother.

• Pw2 when prosecuted narrated that there were 20-25 people, dragged his
brother from house to the courtyard. They gathered around his brotherand
bdat him up with stick (lathi).

• Panchayat, Jarod, due to enmity and with intention to kill him and being
unanimous and being armed with Laathi, Danda, Khotlaetc started giving
filthy abuse and by entering into the house of Parasram assaulted him and
they dragged Parasram from his house and took him out in the courtyard and
beat him with Laathi, Danda and Bhuneshwar Verma hit stone of about 15-
20 kg weight on the head of Parasram and caused his death, due to which his
brain got scattered out of skull.

6
• The Pw1 stated that the dead body of the deceased had been brutally
assaulted. There was no brain material; it had come out of the skull. There
were several injuries caused to the deceased.

• The eye witness Pw2 stated that he was inside his house then suddenly he
heard the sound of scream and beating up a person with lathi(s). Then he
opened the door and he saw that it was his brother Parasram getting up
attacked by a group of people(Bihari, Shanker, Hari, Vinod, Suneshwar,
Bharat and Kamta). He pleaded the people to stop beating his brother but the
didn’t stop and instead Bihari, who was dragging my brother, hit me with a
lathi on my head. Then Kamta also came and hit me on the head. I got
unconscious and my wife took me inside the house to save me and locked
me up. I was peepig from the door and saw that all the accused persons
dragged out my brother from Parchhi and hit Laathi due to which my brother
got unconscious and fell down. Thereafter, Bihari told that he could be alive
so hit the stone. Thereafter, Bhaneshwar, Bihari, Shanker, Tetku, Vinod hit
stone and went away laughing.

• The another eye witness was Pw3, she said that At that time accused Bihari,
Kaushal, Hari, Bharat, Bhuwaneshwar, Tetku, Kamta, Mote etc. came when
her husband(deceased) was resting on the bed. They were carrying lathi(s)
and they dragged her husband to the courtyard and assaulted him. She
requested them to stop, but Bihari warned her that she should better leave or
she would be killed by them. Bihari and Bhubneshwar took the stone which
was kept in her house and sworn to hit her husband. Bihari, Hari, Bharat hit
the stone on the head, due to which the head of my husband was broken and
his death was caused.

• Pw4 added that he saw seven people who assaulted his father; they dragged
him and beat him up with lathi(s). In the first part he didn’t give any specific
names to the accused but later he added a few names to it.

7
Decision by the Sessions judge bench

The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, decided on
29.01.2000 and found all the 17 accused guilty;
“… … … every accused person is punished for one year rigorous imprisonment
under Section 148, five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 and fine of
Rs.1000/- each, and under Section 342 section 323 is included, therefore, accused
persons are punished with life imprisonment under Section 302/149 and fine of
Rs.1000/- each. In case of non-deposit of fine, additional simple imprisonment of 6
months is awarded to each of the accused person and in case of payment of
Rs.20,000/- may be paid to the wife of deceased out of the fine received from the
accused persons as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C.

Accused No.10, Birendra Kumar was found to be Juvenile on the date of

occurrence and his case got separated. The high court has dismissed both the
petitions by that time. On 29.01.2016 this Court found no ground for interference
with respect to 5 petitioners namely Kamta Prasad, Shankerlal Verma, Bharatlal
Verma, Hariram Verma and Vinod Verma and dismissed their Special Leave
Petition. However, as regards the present appellants, notice was issued whereafter
both the sides were heard in the matter.

Legal Interpretation

Section 147 , IPC 1

147. Punishment for rioting.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.

Section 148, IPC

148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, being
armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence,
is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

1 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

8
Section 323 , IPC
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case
provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 342, IPC

342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.—Whoever wrongfully confines any
person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both.

Section 450, IPC

450. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for
life.—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence
punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Section 302, IPC

302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with
death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 149 , IPC

149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in
prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such
as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution
of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Arguements

From the victim’s side

• The accused had deliberately attacked the deceased and his family because
the deceased was the sarpanch of the village. Due to enmity and jealousy the

9
 accused came with a gang and formed an unlawful assembly to attack the
deceased.

• The accused had conspired with others to harm the deceased as they had
some previously unsorted disputes with the deceased.

• The accused wanted to harm the family of the deceased also so as to threaten
the family.

• They had hit with the lathi on the head of the deceased and the Pw2 also, this
shows they had a general intent to harm the family and the deceased.

From the appellant

An appeal was again filed to the Supreme Court.

• The Pw2 who filed an FIR did not mention any specific names.
• Pw2 did not provide any specific names to the specific act of the occurrence
but still the accused got prosecuted for the same.

• Pw3 did not mention any names of the appellant on the testimony.

• The Pw4 miss out on the names of the accused but added the names later.

• As per the statements of the eye witnesses it would seem more reasonable
and real if they were on the streets instead inside the house. The Pw4 had
accepted that his mother had put them inside the home and they were
peeping from the door.

Decision by Supreme Court

Considering all the factual aspects, in our considered view, it is not established
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences with which
they were tried. We, therefore, grant benefit of doubt to CRIMINAL APPEAL

10
NOS. 478-479 .OF 2019 (@ SLP (Crl) Nos.457-458 OF 2016) Dauwalal @
Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of
Chhattisgarh) the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the appellants
are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They be set at liberty unless
their presence is required in connection with any other offence.

Critical analysis

1. The session court should have considered the fact that Pw2 was peeping
behind the door. The possibility could be that he might not have seen
everything clearly and thus his statements could be ambiguous and would be
difficult to be considered.

2. Pw3 first did not mention any name in the testimony and then suddenly she
took names for the acts done that caused her husband’s death. The sudden
addition in the statements should be questioned.

3. Pw4 did not mention the appellants in the first part of his statements. Then in
the latter part he added names. As per his statements his mother (Pw3) had
put him inside the house and he was peeping to capture the act. This can be
ambiguous.

4. The SC court should have considered the fact that the deceased was very
close to the witnesses that the court took into consideration. One was his
brother, another was his wife and the last one was his son. After seeing such
a horrible attack on the deceased it is quite possible that they would have
gone into a shock. It would be totally unacceptable for them to see the
deceased in such situation. It is a possible reason why they missed out on
name at the first.

11
Conclusion

The case was about a murder of a Sarpanch. The deceased was brutally attacked
and was crushed to death. The session court found all the 17 accused guilty
whereas the Supreme Court came up with another decision.

The court while deciding upon any case considers all the relevant facts of the case.
The courts should consider the gravity of the offence committed likewise the
session court. Court seeks justice to the people, justice can be only done if the
offender realises and goes through the same intensity of the punishment that the
victim went through.

But the courts may have different perceptions on the same case and the same facts.
The decision may turn on appeal and petition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• https://indiankanoon.org/
• https://www.wikipedia.org/

12