Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Supreme Court Judgments

Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2022


RSS Feed img

BRIJRANI V. STATE OF M.P [2003] INSC 333 (31 July 2003)

of +45 of 1472 of +257 of of To of candidate of cadre of graduate of o f of s ervices of Regulation of 9 of Council of "9 . of (1) Students of shall of academic of of For of University/Institution of following of course of

(i) of competitive of Government of appointed of t he of same of

(ii) of centralized of

(iii) of performance of MBBS of have of or of

(iv) of Provided of postgraduate/admissions of Government of examining of or of course of of Provided of " of 6 the of Examination of 2002 Examination of 2002 Government of 14.1 p art of " MADHYA of GRADUATION of ENTRANCE of 2002 of 2002 B hopal, of 14th of 14th No. of 5-7- Medical of Pradesh, of No. of 5-7- 2002 make of e ntrance of D egree/Diploma of College of RULES of Special Leave Petition (civil) .0 Title of " Madhya of E ntrance of 2002 r ules of i n of Xxx xxx xxx xxx of Transfer Petition (crl.) .0 Reservation__ of 21% c andidates of Motion Case (crl.) % of b elonging of 14% a re of o ther of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

1 Women's of 30% a nd of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

2 The of eligibility of medical of 40% candidates of 50% category of xxx xxx xxx of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

6.1 For of P radesh of 20% D egree/Diploma of r eserved. of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

6.2 They of examination of doing of Degree/Diploma of criteria, of department. of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

6.3 Selection of individual of first, of such of the of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

6.4 Further of service of consideration of nomination. of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

6.5 The of for of 2002) of but of reason. of xxx xxx xxx of The of Government of Medical of 2002 (hereinafter of 2002 ', of Extraordinary of 28th extracted of "

MADHYA of GRADUATE of 2002 of 2002 No. of 2-1- endorsement of 5-7- Motion Case (civil) th of 2002 Education, of issued of Graduate of 2002 entrance of Degree/Diploma of Colleges of These of 20% s eats of in-service of P radesh. of n omination of in of selection of d epartment. of of Therefore, of formulate of terms of serving of D egree/Diploma of Dental of Accordingly, of endorsement of 2-1- Writ Petition (civil) -2002, of Family of Mantralaya, of rules of Degree/Diploma of Colleges of of Title.___ of " Madhya of ( In-service) of 2002 will of notification of will of departments of Xxx xxx xxx xxx of Selection of 1. O candidates of 5 ye under of a re of f or of Women of three of eligible of five of Relaxation of l ess of subject of s election of Gynaecology of Special Leave Petition (crl) . For of who of will of a . 30% of integrated of and of b . 30% of length of * of 2 ma months of 6 of 6 Special Leave Petition (civil) additional of falls of * of five of plan of 30 m under of years of plan of 20 m of c. of 40% of Madhya of Board. of * of examination of selection of Writ Petition (civil) .

The of c andidates of 45 y ears. of 45 of 45 xxx xxx xxx xxx of 45 of 45 Terms of 1. E who of examination of Pradesh of Special Leave Petition (crl.) . of bond of Appeal (civil) years of Course. of * of R s.3.00 of of ( emphasis of It of ' rules', of guidelines of Government. of 2002 make of Government, of 20% m edical of Government. of examination. of rules of sit of except of accordance of down of as of a vailable of 2002 lay of of qualifications of the of examination of p rovisions of also of Medical of 2002 exempt of a nd of q uota of s ubject of framed of Special Leave Petition (crl.) under of 40 % of conducted of t o of i nconsistency of i s of present of hereinafter. of For of t he of ' in-service of Examination, of Government, of examination of Examination of Board of 24.3 examination of 2002 Entrance of entrance of 16.6 two of c andidates, of b efore of C ourt of o f of 2002 service) of 2002 writ of scheduled of Special Petition th of 2003 o f the of 2002 findings of 2002 "

(a) There of employees of and of in of 2002 constitutional of

(b) There of examination of medical of comparative of

(c) of separate of services of tenet of Regulations of India of

(d) Conferral of some of the of areas of 14 o as of Regulation of India of struck of of

(e) The of women of have of and of rendered of discriminatory. of

(f) The of petitioners of reservation of who of amongst of candidates' of hence, of

(g) The of has of stamp of held of 2002 a re of 2002 of 2002 In of o f of 20% t hat of subjected of comparative of study, of candidates of unsustainable, of Medical of Priti of candidates, of was of 14 opetitioners of Physicians of health of exclusively of not of High of While of Court of commencing of 2003 -2004. of 18th promulgated of E ntrance of 2003 Entrance of 2003 Pradesh of 18.2 rules of b y of 10 o Adhiniyam, of 1973 the of 10 oc onfers of Act of in of medical of we of statutory, of guidelines of fact of s uperseded of 2002 , of 2003 specifically of not of P.G. of 2003 h ereunder:- of 2003 "

MADHYA of GRADUATION of 2003 of of No. of 5-62 powers of 10 o Chikitsa of 1973 (Madhya of 19 o S tate of rules of t he of P ost of i n of M adhya of Special Leave Petition (civil) .0 Title. of " Madhya of P .G. of 2003 ". of from of xxx xxx xxx of Transfer Petition (crl.) .0

RESERVATION. of 20% r eserved of scheduled of 16% r eserved of scheduled of 14% reserved of o ther of Pradesh. of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

1 Reservation of s hall of 30% m erit of of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

2 The of eligibility of graduate of 40 % of 50 % of c andidates. of xxx xxx xxx of Transfer Petition (crl.) .

5 In of Special Petition % of Surgeons of Government of service of 3 & which of framed of Family of Government of The of select of year of 2003 B oard of Book' of 4.2.

date of 20.2 o pen of and of concerned, of 108 application of candidates of 9.3.

who of 101 have of third of postponed of appeals of 36 i clearing of 2003 in of Co-incidentally, of 20th last of Board, of petitions of 2002 s tated of are of a llowed of t he of 2002 year of 2002 s et of cannot of 89 i n umber of b urden of the of 2002 admissions. of State of submitted of pressing of 2002 have of such of hereafter. of A of Madhya of to of areas of serving of centered of a criterion of 9(2) Regulations. of performance of in of 2003 Government of test of 30% w ere of the of university of under of 30% c alculating of A dmission of 2002 n ot of Regulation of 9(2) determining of Regulation of 9(2) there of State of examinations of On of 15.5 the of 20.2 writ of by of "

(1) In of five of 9(2) applicable. of 9(2) of 9(2)

(2) In of Regulation of entrance of o f of

(3) The of the of entrance of of

(4) A of the of t o of 20%. of 20%.

(5) For of have of sponsorship of have of list of 4 and of merit of suitable of of that of

(6) The of the of be of present of t he of s ponsorship of T his of appeals of 2002 admissions of this of It of which of counsel of

(1) Whether of examinations of should of

(2) whether of performance of 40 m entrance of 30 m second of 30 m length of

(3) whether of rural/tribal of and of

(4) whether of consecutive of so of of Nature of 20% r eservation of The of open of therefore, of 20% o f of simplified of Court of Ors., of 2001 s imilar of all-India of 50% s eats of 50% seats of were of ' service of c andidates of candidates of them of

(i) the of from of to of and of

(ii) that of not of and, of relevant of d eciding of

(iii) that of or of private of a candidate of steal of based of shall of candidates of

(iv) that of o f of allocation of exclusive of o bject of be of expression. of reservation of which of q uota of considerations of K. of b y of Union of 2002 observation of h and of Court of s ervice of c ategories of weaker of affirmatively of " Some of the of government of g overnment of not of continue of in of having of obligations, of from of have of fresh of examination. of do of for of government of would of Candidates of post of to of the of between of candidates of making of sector of sought of the of n ot of encouragement of of To of m eaning of 14 o classification of i ntelligible of group of differentia of achieved. of objects of long of o bject of t he of available of f rom of p resent of expression) of 229 ( CHCs) of 169 s pecialists of There of d efinite of c onsisting of candidates. of a nd of r eservation. of s ervice of intelligible of a chieved. of achievements, of State of t he of d egree of the of allayed of c andidates of a fter of S tate of guarantee of t he of between ì¥Á of 7 of 7 of 7 bjbjU of 46 of ÿ ÿ of Ê of Transfer Petition (crl.) of 6 î of Appeal (crl.) of 6 ˜6 of 6 of 6 of " of 6 of ­6 of 23 of 23 Ê of Appeal (crl.) of 23 of of Appeal (crl.) of 23 Ê of â5 of of of 2CòQ Ú of 5 Appeal (crl.) of 5 Appeal (civil) of 23 Ê of

SUPREME of CIVIL of CIVIL of 5223 @ S.L.P. of 1082 of 1082 The of Versus of Gopal of With of C IVIL of 2003 (@ of 1090 of 1090 J U of 903- of 903- R .C. of 903- of 903- Leave of I mparting of duty of developed of A sizeable of national of d esirous of laying of a spirants of t he of must of graduation of A jay of 1994 401 ; of 1981 o f of Narasimhan, of 1997 t hat of channel of take of g raduate of guarantee of p erson of qualifies of g raduate of marks of d irect of marks of a dmission. of can of out of t hey of o f of t he of r each of bright of b e of t he of common of m inimum of medical of That of a lso of S tate of 1997 S angharsh of (2001 (8) of 694) class of m arks of 33% at of Medical of August of 14, l earned of Dayanand of 2001 o n of 11, framed of 9 re o f of ( supra) of " of Government of lower of I ndia. of approached of of Government of r educing of t he of I ndia, of be of standards of course, of envisaged of T he of marks of prescription of entrance of for of prescribed of w as of The of conducted of assessing of whether of allowed of assessing of significance of c andidates of s ome of coveted of percentage of there of a pproval of p resent of The of Regulations, of minimum of 50%.

Pradesh of by of if of such of prescribed of a departure of any of Government of justification of in of The of and of a ssessed of examination, of concentrate of w ithout of whom of of Clearly of and of could of Regulation of 9(1) clause of university of assumed of t he of universities of and of differ. of individual of therefore, of Pradesh, of contemplated of in of entrance of candidates, of prepared of candidates of respective of Weigtage of The of d octors of service of a t of of I n of Medical of 1986 Judge of graduate of w eightage of 15 p student of in of 3 ye was of doctors of d octors of I n of o pine of l ength of 15 p by of why of c oncluded of r endered of weightage of 15 p g ot of weightage of h im of i s of t he of w hether of post-graduating of w as of T he of t hree-Judge of V s. of 1992 t he of decision of those of d o of a nd of s uggestion of r equired of t heir of consider of 5 pe favour of y ears of t o of Recently of A nr. of 2000 considered of 20 s doctors of w ho of centre/institution of c ouched of p receding of 10 s doctors of a reas". of the of positive of 10 t " any of a municipal of T he of adjacent of r ule, of u rban of r equire of b enefit of h ad of c lassification of d ecision. of D inesh of S nehelata of r eferred of O rs. of 1975 of 1975 I n of a reas' of w ere of Reservation of w as of f actor of d oes of t he of b ackward of h asten of c ase of p resents of graduation of n ot of s ervice of w e of r endered of c andidates of a ltering of through of c andidates of t he of w eightage of s ubmission of P radesh of State of v illages of t hey of c onditions, of t o of facilities of doctors of rural/tribal of professional of a cts of doctors of services of distribution of a ssigning of finalizing of admission of considerations of the of available of framed. of rules, of a ssigned of Relaxed of So of o f of relevant of admission of candidates of 3 ye would of Obstetrics of defined of rural of class of has of need of m ay of have of more of relaxation of unreasonable of With of suffer of Both of rendered of favour of admission of 3 ye service of 14 o Constitution.of 14 o of 14 o of 14 o Conclusions of 14 o of 14 o We of 14 o Special Leave Petition (civil) .

In of 20% g raduation of c andidates of channel of c annot of t o of sources of Special Leave Petition (crl.) . There of e ligibility of n ot of cannot of I ndia of Writ Petition (civil) . In of there of 9(2) c annot of s ingly of e ligibility of Writ Petition (crl.) . It of rendered of purpose of service of securing of Medical of Appeal (civil) . Women of provision of continuous of sponsorship of w hich of suffer of I ncidental of In of 2002 d epartment, of o f of they of r esults of c onsequent of b y of t hat of i n of 2002 m ay of deserve of w ould of submission of In of 2003 s ervice of 36 h e ntrance of secured of R egulations. of 53 s r emain of could of a ccount of o f of i nterim of petitions. of not of T hose of 108 P re-PG of 2003 d irected of 36 s candidates of directions of candidates of 2003 of 2003 I n of take of 2002 a s of test of 2003 participating of arranged of o ne of t his of Though of 20% b e of number of t he of number of o pen of T he of s tated of b e of A uthority of P G of of t hey of t he of t he of t ake of a period of R esult of The of following of of

(1) The of o f of d octors of t heir of t o of c andidates of a nnulled, of

(2) The of e ntrance of consistent of as of Education of department of t o of s eparate of confusion of

(3) The of 36 s candidates of 2003 scrutinized of examination of candidates of a period of participated of 2002 and of u pon of opportunity of limit, of taking of 2003 participate. of passed of f or of a lready of 36, sponsorship of 36, of 36,

(4) of b e of 36 c have of t he of s uccessful of t he of c onsolidated of b e of w ith of t o of

(5) of consolidated of prepared of a ny of 36 i and of

(6 ) If of qualify of vacant of category of No of + of Appeal (crl.) 14 of 1996

Doraiswamy Raju & H.K. Sema. Sema, J.

Five accused – Chuttia, Gulab, Vrindavan, Brijrani and Jagat Singh – were tried in Sessions Trial No. 72/85 by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh and convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC. Further accused Nos. 1-4 were convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Accused No. 5 was convicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Accused Nos. 1-4 were also convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were also convicted under Sections 324/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of all the charges levelled against them and convicted accused No. 3 - Vrindavan and accused No. 4 – Brijrani for offences punishable under Sections 302/148 and 324 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life and RI for one year respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused – Vrindavan chooses not to prefer an appeal against his conviction. Accused – Brijrani, who is the appellant before us, is the mother of accused – Vrindavan.

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

On 17.5.1985 when the deceased Rajaram was proceeding towards the village (Hintoli-Bari) with a bucket to fetch milk, he stopped on the way and had some talk with accused Chuttia. Then all of a sudden, he was assaulted with Pabbal (Sabbal) from behind by accused Vrindavan, son of accused Chuttia; and accused Brijrani, wife of Chuttia and mother of Vrindavan.

Deceased Rajaram tried to run away but the accused chased him. Accused Vrindavan and accused Brijrani dealt farsa blows while other accused dealt blows on him with their lathis. On being alarmed by the cries of Rajaram, PW-4 – Siyarani, who is the wife of deceased Rajaram, rushed to the spot to rescue her husband but she also sustained a farsa blow on her head dealt by the accused Vrindavan and sustained another farsa blow on her hand dealt by accused Brijrani as a result of which she fell down. FIR (Ex. P1) was lodged promptly at 9 AM on the same day in which all the particulars have been mentioned. PW-17 – V.K. Jain (I.O.) immediately reached the spot and started investigating the case. After holding the inquest report (Ex. P21), he seized the bucket and pair of shoes belonged to the deceased (Ex. P11). He also seized samples of plain and blood stained earth and two pieces of bone (Ex. P12). A blood stained farsa was seized from Brijrani vide Ex. P16 on 17.5.1985. On 18.5.1985, a tabbal was seized from accused Vrindavan. We are not mentioning the full particulars of the seized articles from the possession of other accused as they are not before us, as noticed above.

PW-12, Dr. V.P. Brijpuriya conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased Raja Ram on 17.5.1985 and found following eleven incised wounds of various dimensions.

"1. Cut wound – 13" x 3" x 2" on the left side of the back starting from the tenth rib and going downwards. Sides of the wound were clear and cut was vertical the upper. The upper angle was acute and the lower angle was wider.

2. Cut wound in square shape – 11" x 7" x 5" on the back (towards the chest) on the left side. The upper part of the wound was extended upto skeptula and the lower part upto the 10th rib. It was 2" away from the middle line and was pointing towards the inner side. On the outer side, it was upto the shoulder. The sides of the wound was sharp and vertical.

Skeptula bone was cut into two parts. Lungs was protruding and visible under the wound. Lungs had two cuts – one 4" x 1½ and another was of 3" x 1". Chest was full of blood.

3. Cut wound: - 7" x 2" x 6" was on the right thigh – in the middle portion. This was circular. In this wound all the muscles of the thigh were cut and femur bone was cut into two pieces.

4. Cut wound 3" x ¼" x ¾", vertical wound on the left side of chest.

5. Cut wound 2" x ½" x ¾" – horizontal wound on the right side of the chest.

6. Horizontal wound on the upper part of the left shoulder 7" x 3" x 3". Muscles were cut due to this injury and cumeron bone were cut into two pieces. 3" skin was uncut in the front and towards the inner side of the wound.

7. Cut wound – 2" x 1½" x 1" – on the front portion of the chest on the right side, vertical, on the 4th and 5th rib.

8. Cut wound 3" x ½" x ¼" on the right cheek.

9. Cut wound – 3" x 1" x 1" on the right side of the head on the frontal region – on the back of the hair line – curved. Frontal bone was fractured.

10. Cut wound – 1½" x ¾" x 1" – Temporal bone was fractured on the frontal region on the right side of the head.

11. One cut wound – 1½" x ¾" x 2" – vertical on the cervical area of the chest on the left side. In this wound cervical bone was cut into two pieces." PW-12 found that the deceased – Rajaram was virtually cut into two and died on the spot as a result of excessive hemorrhage. The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, convicted Brijrani and her son Vrindavan, as noticed above.

It is not disputed that the deceased and the accused are closely related.

PW-4 – Siyarani is the wife of deceased Rajaram. Accused Vrindavan is the nephew of PW-4 – Siyarani. Accused Brijrani is the elder sister-in-law (Jethani) of PW-4. Accused Gulab is the nephew of PW-4. Accused Chuttia is the brother-in-law of PW-4 and father of the accused Vrindavan. Accused Brijrani is the mother of accused Vrindavan.

The High Court, while convicting the appellant, relied upon the testimony of PW-1 – Ghasiram and PW-4 – Siyarani – wife of the deceased.

PW-1 – Ghasiram is an independent witness. He specifically stated in earlier part of the statement that the incident was witnessed by him and both accused Nos. 3 and 4 were armed with Pabbal and Farsa. This witness, however, stated that he could not see later part of the assault near the house of Dhanua as his view was obstructed by a house in between but he over- heard Rajaram shouting for help. He has also stated that being alarmed by the cry of her husband, Siyarani had rushed to his rescue. PW-4 – Siyarani has also stated that being alarmed by the cries of her husband, she went to the house of Dhanua to rescue her husband. She saw her husband being assaulted. She also suffered a farsa blow on her head dealt by accused Vrindavan and another blow of farsa on her hand dealt by appellant – Brijrani.

Mr. Manish Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant strongly urged that the presence of the appellant – Brijrani at the place of incidence has not been established. This contention, in our view, is negatived by the testimony of PWs. 1 and 4, apart from documentary and medical evidence. As already noticed, accused and PW-4 were closely related. Blood stained farsa was seized from the appellant – Brijrani (Ex. P16) on the date of the incident, i.e. 17.5.1985 itself. PW-1 Ghasiram categorically stated that on the fateful morning when he was going to the farm for daily morning routine, he saw deceased Rajaram going from his house towards the village with a bucket for taking milk. He also saw Rajaram stopped to talk to Chuttia. At that time, accused Vrindavan hit Rajaram with Pabbal from behind which hit Rajaram at his back. He also saw, amongst others, Gulab's mother, which witness was lateron identified as Brijrani, assaulting Rajaram with farsa.

PW-4 – Siyarani is the wife of deceased Rajaram. She stated that around 7 AM when she was inside the house, she heard the sound of her husband "come……save me" from the front side of the house of Vrindavan.

She rushed to Dhanua's house where she saw her husband was being assaulted. Accused Vrindavan came and gave a farsa blow on her head.

Appellant – Brijrani gave a farsa blow on her arm and she fell down unconsciously. When she regained consciousness she saw her husband was cut into two pieces. She recognized the pabbal and farsa with which she was hit. She could identify Pabbal (Art. A) with which she was hit by accused Vrindavan and farsa (Art. B) with which she was hit by appellant – Brijrani.

PWs. 1 and 4 were subjected to cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to impeach the credit worthiness of their testimony.

PW. 12, Dr. H.P. Brijpuria, as already noticed, conducted post mortem on the deceased and found eleven incised wounds of different dimensions and sizes. The doctor opined that the sizes of all cut wounds were clear and sharp. The doctor in paragraph 7 of his examination-in-chief, stated as under:

"All the injuries of the deceased were ante-mortem. Wound No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were expected from sharp, heavy and long edged weapon. Wound No. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were expected from a sharp cutting and heavy weapon which is different from the earlier one. The inner injury of the wound No. 2 was expected from multiple hit at the same spot. Injury No. 2 was serious which was sufficient to cause death in normal circumstances." The doctor further opined in paragraph 20 of examination-in-chief as under:

"The injuries suffered by the deceased is possible by the weapons item (A) pharsa and Katarna item (B) produced in the Court." As already noticed, Art. (A) was seized from Vrindavan and Art. (B) was seized from the appellant Brijrani. The doctor further opined that all the injuries could not be possible by the same weapon because all of them were of different depth and sizes. The doctor in paragraph 23 of cross- examination stated as under:

"It is correct that the internal injuries suffer by the body depend upon the fact that how the sharp edge of the weapon hits the body. All the injuries could not be possible by the same weapon because all of them were of different depth and size.

On the basis of the depth and length of the wounds I am telling that they could have been caused by two different weapons. If only a small portion of a long edged weapon had hit the body, then the size of the wound will be smaller." PW-4, Siyarani, as already noticed, suffered two injuries – one on the hand by blow of Pabbal dealt by Vrindavan and the other on the left hand dealt by a farsa blow by appellant Brijrani. PW-18 – Dr. K.P. Tripathi examined PW.4 on 17.5.1985 and found the following injuries on her body:

1. "Incised wound : 4" x ½" deep upto the bones, on the front side of the head.

2. Incised wound: 3" x 2" x ½" on the frontal part of left hand".

The medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony of PW.4 in material particulars.

In the premises aforesaid, we have no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the two courts concurrently. This appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.

The appellant is on bail. She shall be taken in custody forthwith. Her bail bonds stand cancelled.



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys