Devilal and 2 others

Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh

Table of Contents
Introduction
An overview of the
cases facts
Issues raised by court
Provision related to the
case
Arguments from the
perspective of the
Appellant's side
Arguments from the
perspective of the
Respondent's side
Case-related judgments
Judgement
Conclusion

Introduction

There is a long history of untouchability in India, which has been practiced since ancient
times and probably still exists to this day. In this example of a combat that emerged out of
caste quarrel is the cause of the offense befell that changed into homicide. According to
section 300 of the Indian Penal Code if the death is brought on to inflicting dying then its
now no longer culpable murder, however, murder and in line with section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, every person who had done murder will be punished with death or life
imprisonment and will be vulnerable to fine. Various judgments are made in India in
instances related to murder.

In this case, The Sufferer Ganeshram was being murdered by Devilal alongside his sons
Gokul and Amrat Ram. Even after being dispatched to the hospital, he couldn't survive. An
FIR became registered by Ganeshram on 19 July 1998 pointing out that when he was
returning to his home, Devilal with his sons armed with an axe, Gokul armed with a sword
and Amrat ram with a stick attacked him and Devilal additionally abused him for his caste.

The trial court after checking all the evidence related to the FIR, assertion of eye-witnesses
convicted the accused of lifetime imprisonment on 1 may 1999, but not one of the accused
became discovered punishable under SC/ST act. The verdict was confirmed by both High
Court and Supreme Court.

An overview of the cases facts

In the prevailing case, the appellant's Devilal and his sons Gokul and Amrat ram filed a
petition in opposition to the judgment exceeded through the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
in the Supreme Court wherein the former tried the appellant and his sons in the special
offense.

Ganeshram was crushed by Devilal, Gokul, and Amrat ram and then he was taken to the
police station where he registered the FIR after which he was taken to a district hospital.
Ganeshram died later on, and when his postmortem was carried out a statement about his
inner and outside accidents were made.

Following the Initial Investigation, the defendants Devilal, Gokul, and Amrat ram were
arrested and the applicants were tried for a special offense together with Gattubai, the wife of
the defendant Devilal. After reviewing all of the evidence in the case files, medical records,
and witness testimony, the trial court ruled that the FIR recorded at the instance was
trustworthy as a death testimony. Section 34 and section 302 have been proven by
prosecutors against defendants Devilal, Gokul, and Amrat ram. They were sentenced to life
imprisonment with a fine of 5000 each. However, the case of the fourth accused Gattubai
was not proven. Devilal’s wife and none of the defendants were found guilty of the felony
offense punishable under the SC/ST Act.

The court through an order dated 8 April 2009 released the accused Devilal and Gokul on
bail as they’d long passed on the imprisonment for 9 years and 4 months. As part of the
petition, Amrat ram was claimed to be a juvenile when the incident occurred and a plea of
juvenility was offered by him. After doing an inquiry, a report was submitted to the court
according to which Amrat ram was 16 years, 11 months, and 26 days old when the crime was
committed. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, specifies that male juveniles are considered
minors when they are 16 years of age, but the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of
children) Act, 2000, specifies that the age of juvenility of male juveniles is 18 years old. Due
to the increase age of juveniles from 16 to 18, as a result of a JJ Act of 2000, the lifetime
imprisonment of appellant Amrat Ram was set aside. This case was then handed over to
Jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board for determination of the appropriate fine to be imposed.

The Court Raised the following Issues:

Did the High Court of Madhya Pradesh make a correct judgment in finding the appellants
guilty?

According to JJ Act, 1986, Amrat ram was a major, but according to JJ Act, 2000, he was a
minor, therefore should he be considered a major or minor?

The provisions related to this case are as follows:

Section 34 of IPC: If an offense is done by several persons with the same intention then each
one of them is as liable as if the single person must have been liable if he had done the act
that is an act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Section 302 of IPC: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or life
imprisonment and shall also be liable for a fine.

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

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: This act lays rules and laws regarding the care, protection,
development, and rehabilitation of juveniles and matters related to disposition of delinquent
juveniles.

Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act, 2000: If there is any case involving
juvenile in any court on the date this the act came into being all proceedings shall be
continued in the court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds the accused to
be juvenile or any juvenile committing offense it shall record the evidence and findings but
instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, it must forward the juvenile to the
Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of
this Act as if it had been satisfied on an inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed
the offense.

Argument from the perspective of the Appellant’s side:

The Senior Advocate for the appellants Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain has argued that it’d be not
possible to trust the Ganeshram, he should have made any report to the police as his situation
became now no longer so desirable and FIR became recorded after extra than 3 hours when
the offense was committed. Adv. Sushil Kumar Jain argued that the prosecution witness 7
Laxminarayan, has admitted on cross-examination that the alleged eyewitnesses were not
able to see the front of Devilal’s house, where the offense was committed. Further, he stated
that Sajan Bai, the prime witness, accepted that the witness was tutored.

Argument from the perspective of Respondent’s side:

Mr.Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Advocate for the state stated that the stories of prosecution
witnesses 1 and 2 which are Sajan Bai and Saman Bai are pretty coherent, and their presence
becomes taken proper from the preliminary degree of reporting of the crime that distinction
became simply a 100ft from their residence to Devilal’s, and no cross-exam became
completed on this. Mr.Ruprah, also stated that the FIR itself noted the presence of PW-1
Sajan Bai and PW-2 Saman Bai. The declaration of each of those witnesses proves that the
appellant's had commenced an attack on Ganeshram which caused his death.

Case-related Judgments:

Several Previous Judgments were referenced in this case, some of them are:-

Hari Ram vs State of Rajasthan- in which the issue of Juvenile Justice was raised for the first
time.

Jitendra Singh vs State of UP- in which the case was handled over to the Juvenile Justice
Board.

Pratap Singh vs State of Jharkhand- The High Court held that for determining the age of
juvenile, the provisions of 1986 would apply and not 2000 Act.

Judgment

In this case, the Supreme Court consist with three bench judges Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira
Banerjee and K.M. Joseph affirms the perspectives taken from lower courts and determined
that the appellants are responsible for the Murder. The sentence of accused Devilal and
Gokul remained the same in line with sections 34, 302, and 342 of IPC, and had been given
life imprisonment together with a fine. However, in the case of Amrat ram, his life
imprisonment was set aside and the case was given to Jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board
for figuring out a suitable quantum of fine that ought to be levied upon him because the age
of the minor became raised from 16 to 18 in the JJ Act of 2000.

Conclusion

The case first went to Trial Court and then to the High Court who gave the judgment of life
imprisonment, this order was challenged in Supreme Court who saved the judgment equal for
Devilal and his elder son Gokul and the case of Amrat ram was given to Juvenile Justice
Board. Amrat ram case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board as he was a juvenile at
the time of offense according to the JJ Act, in which the age of juvenile was raised from 16 to
18. The judgment in my opinion is relevant and I totally agree with it.