SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1169

2009(5) Supreme 691
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Jagriti Devi — Appellant
versus
State of H.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2003
Decided on : 06-07-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra, Sanjay Katyal, H.S. Sandhu, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Naresh Kr. Sharma, Advocate.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 299 and 300 – Both the expression “intent” and “knowledge” postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude which is of different degrees – The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. mental attitude towards the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. (Para 18)

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 – When and if there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I – However, if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part II. (Para 18)

        (1976) 4 SCC 382; (2002) 7 SCC 175; (2002) 7 SCC 691; (2003) 10 SCC 472; (2004) 9 SCC 37; (2004) 12 SCC 269; (2005) 9 SCC 71 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. The accused-appellant Jagriti Devi is the legally wedded wife of one Mohinder Singh who was a resident of village Atgaon. The husband of the accused-appellant, however, married for a second time and brought the second wife-Shanti Devi home who was the deceased in the present case.

        2. The deceased-Shanti Devi slept outside the house in veranda on the night intervening 01.06.1996 and 02.06.1996. When the said deceased was sleeping in the veranda on 02.06.1996 at about 6 a.m., the accused-appellant assaulted her with a blow on her head and one blow on her neck. The deceased-Shanti Devi, however, survived for about few hours of the infliction of the injuries, and thereafter she died.

        3. The Trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty of the offence alleged against her and convicted her for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

        4. The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court :

        There was no intention on the part of the accused-appellant to kill the deceased.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 31.08.2000 affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla convicting the accused-appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to also undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one year.

2. The accused-appellant herein was tried for an offence of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC for allegedly committing the murder of her co-wife Shama Devi, on 02.06.1996 at her house in Village Atgaon, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla.

3. The accused-appellant Jagriti Devi is the legally wedded wife of one Mohinder Singh who was a resident of village Atgaon. Out of the aforesaid wedlock, the accused-appellant gave birth to five children, four daughters and one son. The husband of the accused-appellant, however, married for a second time and brought the second wife-Shanti Devi home who was the deceased in the present case.

4. The aforesaid marriage with the deceased-Shanti Devi took place about 2-3 months prior to the date of occurrence. On 02.06.1996, the husband of the accused-appellant was out of station as he had gone to Rohru on the previous day. The deceased-Shanti Devi slept outside the house in veranda on the night intervening 01.06.1996 and 02.06.1996. When the said deceased was sleeping in the veranda on 02.06.1996 at about 6 a.m., the accused-appellant assaulted her with a ‘Khukri’. A number of blows appeared to have been given on her head and one blow on her neck. The deceased-Shanti Devi, however, survived for about few hours of the infliction of the injuries, and thereafter she died. The accused-appellant immediately after committing the crime fled away with the weapon of offence after washing her hands at the water tap in front of her house.

5. The Police was informed by Naresh, the brother of the deceased-Shanti Devi who lived in a separate village but not very far from the village of the husband of the accused-appellant. Being informed by a boy named Rajesh, Naresh came to the spot and saw his sister lying un-conscious with a number of bleeding injuries on her head and neck. Naresh informed the police. On being informed, Sub Inspector Dhanpat Rai who was the Additional Station House Officer at Police Station, Rohru, went to the spot of occurrence. By the time he reached the spot, the deceased-Shanti Devi had died. The body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination.

6. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused-appellant in Chirgaon Bazar, when she was going towards her parents village in the company of her brother. On being interrogated, the accused-appellant told the Police that she had kept the ‘Khukri’ hidden in a field. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the ‘Khukri’ was subsequently recovered and sealed in a parcel. The Police completed the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the accused-appellant-appellant under Section 302 IPC.

7. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge of Section 302 IPC and claimed to be tried. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. After completion of the recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the CrPC”). In the said examination, the accused-appellant did not deny having caused fatal injuries to the deceased, but she stated that she had killed the deceased in exercise of her right of private defence. The accused-appellant also filed a written statement under Section 233 of the Cr.PC in which she stated that on the fateful day, there was altercation between her and the deceased upon which deceased took out the ‘Khukri’ kept under her pillow




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top