SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Awadhesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1670 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1299 of 2016]
Decided On : 08-11-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – High Court modified conviction from that of Section 302 IPC to that of under Section 304 Part I IPC holding that it was not a planned crime; there was no prior intention; and it took place in heat of passion on spur of moment – Trial Court convicted respondent (Accused) as specific role of fire on deceased was attributed to him – Trial Court acquitted other three accused persons – Incident in question that took place half an hour after there was abusive language used by cousin of original accused No. 1 with deceased – None of persons from complainant side, including deceased, was having any weapon – There was no further grave and sudden provocation by deceased which led to accused to fire on deceased and, that too, from a very close range – Intention is a matter of inference and when death is as a result of intentional firing, intention to cause death is patent unless case falls under any of exceptions – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is attracted only when there is a fight or quarrel which requires mutual provocation and blows by both sides in which offender does not take undue advantage – High Court has materially erred in applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC by holding that it was not a planned crime and there was no prior intention and it took place in heat of passion on spur of moment – Case falls under Clause fourthly to Section 300 IPC and Trial Court was right in convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, more particularly, when accused fired from a country-made firearm on deceased from a close range – Accused was supposed to know that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – Judgment passed by High Court modifying conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to that of Section 304 Part I IPC quashed and set aside – Judgment passed by Trial Court convicting original accused No. 1 for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC restored. (Paras 8.1, 8.2, 8.5, 8.6, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Original complainant has preferred this appeal assailing judgment and order dated 18.12.2015 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 2517 of 2009 by which High Court has been pleased to allow appeal preferred by original accused partly and has converted conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court was right in convicting the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, more particularly, when accused fired from a country-made firearm on deceased from a close range. By accused firing from a close range, accused was supposed to know that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 2517 of 2009 by which the High Court has been pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the original accused partly and has converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, the original complainant has preferred this appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution was that the complainant Awadesh Kumar lodged an FIR at Police Station Khiri, District Lakhimpur Kheri on 11.07.2006 at 18:45 hours alleging therein that on 11.07.2006 at about 5:30 p.m. his mother Smt. Lajjawati was making complaint to Ravinder Verma (original accused No. 1 respondent No. 2 herein) regarding bad behaviour of his nephew Vishun Kumar. At that time, Sudhir @ Ramaudh, Rakesh, Vishun Kumar were also present there. When the mother of the complainant was making complaint, meanwhile all the above named four persons started quarrelling with his mother. In the meanwhile, the brother of the complainant Anoop Kumar and his father Ram Lakhan also reached there. Then all the four accused persons were asked by these persons to go away from there. Feeling annoyed by this conduct of the complainant side, Vishnu Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Sudhir @ Ramaudh exhorted Ravinder to fire at the deceased, Ravinder, with his country made pistol fired on the complainant’s mother. The complainant along with other persons took his injured mother to police station and lodged the FIR.
4. That, initially the case was registered under Section 307, 504, 506/34 IPC, however, subsequently on the death of Smt. Lajjawati on 11.07.2006, the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against all the four named accused persons, including respondent No. 2 herein. All of them were tried by the learned Court of Sessions for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The learned Trial Court convicted respondent No. 2 herein (Ravinder) as the specific role of fire on the deceased was attributed to him. The learned Trial Court acquitted the other three accused persons. The Respondent No.2 herein (original accused no.1) feeling dissatisfied with the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court convicting him, preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has modified the conviction from that of punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of 20,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court modifying the conviction from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part I IPC, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
5. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant original complainant has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in modifying the conviction from that of Section 302 IPC to that of under Section 304 Part I IPC.
6. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant that, as such, the accused fired on the deceased from a close range, due to which the deceased sustained serious injuries and ultimately died and, therefore, the case would fall under clause fourthly to Section 300 IPC. It is submitted that, therefore, when the case falls under Clause fourthly to Section 300 IPC, the act of the accused would be culpable homicide amounting to murder. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has submitted that the High Court has materially erred in holding that the offence committed by the accused Ravinder would come within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC by observing that it was not a planned crime and there was no prior intention and it took place in the heat of passion on the spur of moment.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shivshankar
Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 330 – Relied [Para 8.3]
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.