State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamlal & Ors.

Held: The deceased was not admitted on the day of incident – In the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that the deceased complained of headache and was treated in the district hospital for twelve days and was discharged – While returning home along with PW-4, he again complained of a headache and was, therefore, admitted to the hospital, where he died on 15.11.1989 – Thus, the death was fifteen days after the incident – The post-mortem report records that the cause of death was asphyxia, but the exact cause of death could not be ascertained – Neither the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report nor the evidence of PW-17 prove that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased resulted in his death – The medical evidence creates a serious doubt as to whether injuries allegedly inflicted by the respondents caused the death of victim – Therefore, there is a serious doubt whether even s.304 of the IPC could have been applied, as the medical opinion does not support the theory of homicidal death of the deceased – That is why it is not possible to interfere with the judgment of the High Court directing that the respondents-accused should be let off for the offence u/s. 304, r/w. s.149 of the IPC, on the sentence that has been undergone – When the High Court decided the appeal in 2017, the incident was already twenty-eight years old – When this Court is deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising out of a special leave petition of the year of 2018), the incident is almost thirty-six years old – When the judgment of the High Court was delivered, at least five accused were above seventy years of age, and one of them was of the age of about eighty years – A substantial amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed by the High Court by way of fine – Therefore, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. [Paras 12, 13 and 14]

Appeals – Appeals against conviction – Old age of accused – Long lapse of time from commission of offence – Where accused is on bail – Priority to the appeals:

Held: The old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail – If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade – Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority. [Para 15]