Bhagchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2021 – Case Summary

In the case of Bhagchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2021, presided over by the Supreme Court of India, the appellant Bhagchandra challenged the judgment and order dated 19th December 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 and Section 506­B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The trial judge had awarded death sentence to the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC (3 counts) and 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment each for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 506­B of the IPC respectively.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Bhagchandra, is the real brother of deceased Thakur Das and deceased Devki Prasad. Deceased Akhilesh was the son of deceased Devki Prasad and as such, the nephew of the appellant. The prosecution story in brief, is that on the early morning of 11th October 2015, the appellant was seen armed with an axe getting out of the house of the deceased. The appellant was suspected of having a previous enmity with the deceased. Upon entering the house, the bodies of Thakur Das and Akhilesh were found, and Devki Prasad was found assaulted in the field nearby.

Issues

The appellant denied all the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated by Kiran Patel (PW­1) to grab the property. The appellant’s counsel argued that the entire case against the appellant is a fabricated one and has been framed at the instance of Kiran Patel (PW­1). The counsel submitted that the evidence as placed on record by the prosecution does not establish the guilt of the accused­appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Court’s Observations

The court observed that the testimonies of the witnesses, especially PW­1­Kiran Patel, PW­2­Urmila and PW­3­Kamlesh, were consistent and reliable. The court found that the ocular testimonies of these witnesses establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who had assaulted the deceased persons. The court also noted that there were minor discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses, but these discrepancies did not go to the root of the matter and were not significant enough to discredit the witnesses’ testimonies.

The court also observed that the brutality of the murder, wherein three blood relatives were killed, warranted no lesser penalty than the death penalty. The court noted that the necks of all the three persons were severed due to the brutal attack.

The court concluded that the trial court has rightly awarded death penalty and the High Court has rightly confirmed the same. The appeal was thus dismissed.