Narbad Barman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

PerPer: Justice Vivek AgarwalJustice Vivek Agarwal

Heard on the question of admission.

These appeals have been filed by the set of four accused persons namely Satyam Berman, Deepak Yadav, Vinod @ Inga Berman and Narbad Berman, being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09/02/2026 passed by the 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur District Jabalpur, in S.T. No.576 of 2022, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per prosecution story, case in short is that Ajay Berman had lodged a report at Gwarighat Police Station in the form of Dehati Nalishi that on 12/07/2022 at about 11:10, he along with his uncle's son Rahul Berman, Satyam Berman, Narbad Berman, Deepak Yadav and Inga Berman were standing when there was exchange of abuses. When Rahul Berman stopped the other four accused persons from hurling abuses, then the accused persons started beating Rahul Berman with kicks and fists. During this altercation, Satyam Berman took out a knife and hacked Rahul Berman on the right-hand side of his neck, as a result of which Rahul Berman fell down and became unconscious. Monu Kapoor and Suraj Berman intervened, then all the four accused persons ran away. Thereafter, Monu Kapoor and Suraj Berman took Rahul Berman for treatment to Bhandari Hospital, where on examination Rahul Berman was declared to be dead.

4 .4 . Thus, it is submitted that firstly, it was a case of sudden altercation. Secondly, the overt act is attributed to Satyam Berman and the others accused persons have been falsely implicated. Referring to the evidence of post-mortem doctor; Dr. Virendra Maravi (PW-9), it is pointed out that Dr. Virendra Maravi had conducted the postmortem on the body of Rahul on 12/07/2022 at Medical College, Jabalpur, where he was posted as Medical Officer.

In postmortem, Dr. Virendra Maravi (PW-9) found that there was a stab wound 2 cm above right clavicle bone towards 6 cm right of the midline, 12 cm below the right ear in the form oblique form with clean margin. The size of the wound was 2 cm x 1 cm x 18 cm. Thus, it is submitted that looking to the genesis of the offence and the fact that the incident took place at the spur of the moment, the conviction of the appellant-Satyam Berman be altered from one under Section 302 of IPC to 304 Part-I of the IPC and the other accused persons be acquitted from the conviction under Section 302/34 of IPC.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Government Advocate supports the impugned judgement and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that as per report (Ex.P/43) issued by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, the cut marks found on the article C-1 were caused by the knife which was recovered at the instance of the appellant-Satyam Berman. As per FSL report (Ex.P/42), T-shirt of Satyam Berman contained human blood, besides article recovered from Rahul.

Ajay Berman (PW-1) stated that on 12/07/2022 at about 11:00 AM, he was in the hotel, when his cousin Suraj Berman received a phone call from Rahul Berman. Suraj was working in a medical shop close to the place where Ajay Berman was sitting. Suraj had informed this witness about the incident. Thereafter, this witness had lodged Merg Intimation (Ex.P/1), Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/2), Panchnama (Ex.P/3), Shav Nirikshan Naksha Panchnama (Ex.P/4) and Spot Map (Ex.P/5). He has also given his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., as contained in Ex.P/6.

9 .9 . Ajay Berman (PW-1) is not an eyewitness. He admitted that when he reached the spot, there was a crowd of several persons at the place of incident. Ajay Berman is the author of Merg Intimation, and in the Merg Intimation, it is mentioned that Satyam Berman had caused injury to Rahul with a knife

Suraj Berman (PW-2) stated that he was at Shukla Medical Store when his brother Rahul called him and informed him about altercation. He, along with his brother Ajay Berman, who was sitting at the shop of Rohit Tea Stall, reached the place of incident, where he saw that four persons namely Narbad, Deepak Yadav, Inga Berman and Satyam Berman were abusing and beating Rahul. After some time, Monu Kapoor had also reached the place of incident. This witness had called Dial-100. A suggestion was given to this witness that Rahul was involved in several criminal cases, but this suggestion was denied by this witness, stating that he had no knowledge about such cases.

Suraj Berman (PW-2) stated that Rahul was brought to the Bhandari Hospital by his brother Ajay. He admitted that he had not informed anybody at the hospital i.e. either the staff or doctor that how the incident took place and who were the assailants. He admitted that in the FIR, it is nowhere mentioned that Satyam had caused injury with a knife to Rahul.

Vijay Berman (PW-3) is again not an eye-witness. He stated that at the time of incident he was roaring on the road of Narmada River. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that during interrogation in front of him, Satyam had informed the police in his memorandum (Ex.P/11-A) that he had caused injury to Rahul with a knife and that knife was given by him from his house vide Ex.P/12. This witness admitted that the police had called him to the police station to carry out proceedings, as the police had recovered three of the accused persons. This witness admitted that the police had not interrogated either Deepak, Inga or Narbad in front of him. This witness admitted that the police had recovered knife in the evening.

Monu Kapoor (PW-4) claims that he had intervened in the altercation, when Rahul, Ajay and Suraj had also reached, when Satyam had caused injury to Rahul with a knife. Though this witness claims signature on the memorandum (Ex.P/8) and other documents (Ex.P/9, Ex.P/10 & Ex.P/11) from 'B to B' part but admitted that police had not interrogated any of the accused in front of him. This witness was declared hostile in relation to the recovery of knife etc. He has admitted that when he was at Bhandari Hospital, the Police had arrived. He stated that no proceedings were drawn in front of him.

Amar Singh (PW-5) is the retired A.S.I., he had clicked photographs of the place of the incident.

Mohammad Khurshid (PW-6) is the Manager of Bhandari Hospital. He stated that Rahul Berman was brought to Bhandari Hospital in front of him and when Dr. Satyendra Singh had examined him and found him to be dead.

Om Prakash Singh (PW-7), Head Constable had taken the dead body for postmortem to Medical College, Jabalpur.

Dr. Satyendra Singh (PW-8) at Bhandari Hospital, stated that he had checked Rahul Berman and found him to be dead. He had directed the Manager of the Hospital, namely Mohammad Khurshid, to inform the Gwarighat Police Station.

Dr. Virendra Maravi (PW-9) stated that there was a stab wound 2 cm above right clavicle bone towards 6 cm right of the midline, 12 cm below the right ear in the form oblique form with clean margin. The size of the wound was 2 cm x 1 cm x 18 cm. The cause of death was injury caused to the neck and chest caused by a hard, sharp and pointed object. The doctor admitted that the injury was on the lower portion of the neck. He denied that a false report was prepared by him.

Premlal Bhavedi (PW-10), Sub Inspector, had recorded Tehrir (Ex.P/30), made entries in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/36 & Ex.P/37) and thereafter reached Bhandari Hospital, where he had an oral conversation with Ajay Berman, who had given the details of the incident. He had recorded actual Merg No.40/2022 (Ex.P/38), original case Crime No.267/2022 under Sections 294, 302 r/w 34 of IPC vide FIR (Ex.P/39). There are no major contradictions in his testimony.

Devi Singh Tomar (PW-11), who is the retired Sub-Inspector, had recorded statements of witnesses Suraj @ Surya Berman, Monu Kapoor and Vijay Berman, as they had narrated the incident. These statements were recorded on 12/07/2022 itself, thereafter he had recorded statements of Anoop Devak and Mohammad Khurshid at Bhandari Hospital on 20/07/2022 and that of Dr. Satyendra Singh on 30/09/2022. On 12/07/2022only Narbad, Vinod @ Inga Berman, Deepak Yadav were apprehended and interrogated. Inga @ Vindod Berman had informed that knife must be with Satyam Berman when his memorandum (Ex.P/9) was recorded. Narbad has also given his statement on the same lines and his memorandum (Ex.P/8) was recorded and Deepak's memorandum (Ex.P/10) was also recorded on the same day. They were arrested vide Ex.P/15 to Ex.P/17. He proved the FSL report contained in Ex.P/40, Ex.P/41, Ex.P/42 and Ex.P/43. He had seized the knife from the accused Satyam. He admitted that at the time of seizure of knife, he had not found any blood stains on the knife. He denied the suggestion that the seized knife had any blood stains. He admitted that he had recorded the memorandum statement of Satyam and thereafter seized knife from him.

2 1 .2 1 . Thus, when the evidence of these eye witnesses and investigator / Investigating Officers is taken into consideration, it is evident that incident took place at the spur of the moment. In the post mortem, Dr. Virendra Maravi (PW-9) found a single injury above the right clavicle bone. This injury is attributed to Satyam Berman. The recovery of knife is also from Satyam Berman. Blood-stained clothes of Satyam Berman were recovered and there was human blood on his T-shirt (Article-E) vide FSL report (Ex.P/42). Ex.P/43 revealed that the knife which was recovered at the instance of Satyam could have caused the injuries found on the body of the deceased Rahul.

When these facts are taken into consideration, and in view of the fact that there were no other injuries on the body of Rahul, as pointed out by Dr. Virendra Maravi (PW-9), it is evident that the main accused is Satyam. This case will be covered by the law laid down by the three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stalin vs. State represented by theStalin vs. State represented by the Inspector, (2020) 9 SCC 524,Inspector, (2020) 9 SCC 524, whereby it is held that " the fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances, which will decide the nature of offence."

In that case, since a single fatal knife blow was inflicted during the scuffle which had ensued between the parties due to exchange of hot words, and the occurrence took place out of a sudden and grave provocation, taking into consideration the fact that the accused had inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and had inflicted injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court altered the conviction from one under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC.

The facts of the present case are similar to that of the case of StalinStalin (supra)(supra),, therefore, the conviction of accused-Satyam Berman S/o Lakhan Berman, is altered from one under 302 of IPC to Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC. Accordingly, he is directed to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 year.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu vs.Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu vs. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545,State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545, wherein in it is held that " Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by one, into others, in pursuance to a common intention. Onus is on the prosecution to prove the common intention to the satisfaction of the court. The quality of evidence will have to be substantial, concrete, definite and clear. When a part of evidence produced by the prosecution to bring the accused within the fold of Section 34 of IPC is disbelieved, the remaining part will have to be examined with adequate care and caution, as the liability that is fastened with the aid of Section 34 is vicarious liability fastened on the accused by treating him on a par with the one who actually committed the offence."

So far as the other accused persons, namely Deepak Yadav, Vinod @ Inga Berman and Narbad Berman, are concerned, their involvement appears to be of over-implication. No overt act was attributed to any of them Therefore, their conviction under Section 302 of IPC with the aid of Section 34 cannot be said to be made out.

Accordingly, the conviction of appellants- Deepak Yadav, Vinod @ Inga Berman and Narbad Berman, under Section 302 r/w 34 is set aside.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.2779/2026 and Criminal Appeal No.3301/2026 filed by the appellants namely Narbad Berman, Deepak Yadav and Vinod @ Inga Berman, are allowed. The appellants Deepak Yadav, Vinod @ Inga Berman and Narbad Berman are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

The Criminal Appeal No.2966 of 2026 filed by the appellant-Satyam Berman is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above.

3 0 .3 0 . The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.