Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : N.M.KASLIWAL,G.K.SHARMA
NATHU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CRI. J. A. 473 Of 1982
Decided On : 05/08/1985
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 300, 302, 304 PART I, IPC - EXCEPTION 4 TO SECTION 300, IPC - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - SUDDEN FIGHT - HEAT OF PASSION - NO PREMEDITATION - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302, IPC SET ASIDE - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 304 PART I, IPC UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Nathu, was convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of his younger brother, Kishore, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident occurred on July 4, 1982, when Nathu inflicted three knife wounds on Kishore during a sudden quarrel over a pair of shorts. Kishore later died from his injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that there was no premeditation or intention on the part of Nathu to cause Kishore's death. The quarrel was sudden and took place in the heat of passion, without any pre-meditation. Therefore, the Court held that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which provides an exception to the offense of murder when the act is committed without premeditation and in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the intention to cause death when he inflicted the knife wounds on the deceased? 2. Whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision: 1. Section 300 of the IPC defines murder as the intentional killing of a human being. 2. Exception 4 to Section 300 provides an exception to the offense of murder when the act is committed without premeditation and in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel. 3. In order to establish the offense of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to cause death.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court sentenced the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.
SHARMA,J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellant Nathu through the jail authorities against his conviction u/s. 302, IPC.
( 2 ) THE learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 30th Sept. 1982, found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s. 302, IPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 months R. I. It was also directed that from the amount of fine realised from the accused, a sum of Rs. 800/- be given to Mst. Dali.
( 3 ) THE incident took place on 4th July, 1982, but the report Ex. P1 in this connection was lodged on 5th July, 1982, by one Prabhat at Police Outpost - Newai, where it was alleged that on 4th July, 1982, at about 8. 30 p. m. , he came to his house from his shop. He found that on the Chabutra in front of his house, Kishore was lying injured, and a large number of persons had collected there. There were injuries on the left side of the stomach of Kishore and blood was coming out. Kishore was telling that his brother Nathu had inflicted knife-blows to him. Prabhat also inquired from Kishore, who told him that he was inflicted knife-blows. Kishore then was taken to hospital, Newai, where he was treated by the doctor. On 5th July, 1982, at about 3 P. M. , he died in the hospital on account of the injuries. After his death he (Prabhat) came to police station and submitted this report. On this report, a case u/s. 302, IPC, was registered and investigation started. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a challan against Nathu accused in the Court of CJM, Tonk; and then the accused was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, framed charge u/s. 302, IPC, against Nathu appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 6 witnesses in all. The case of Nathu accused was that he and Kishore were real brothers and Kishore was younger to him. He was supporting him since his childhood. He further contended that on account of enmity, he has been entangled in this case by one Chhotiya who used to come to his house.
( 4 ) IT is not disputed that Kishore died on account of injuries. Report Ex. P. 1 indicates that when Prabhat came to his house, he found Kishore lying on the Chabutra in front of his house having injuries on his stomach. Mst. Dali PW 3, who is the widow of deceased Kishore, has stated that Nathu had asked Kishore as to whether he had taken his chaddhi, whereupon, Kishore replied in negative. They both were inside the gwadi. Kishore at that time, was lying on a cot. Hearing the reply of Kishore, Nathu inflicted three knife-blows to Kishore on his stomach. While Kishore and Nathu were fighting with each other, they came to the pol where Kishore fell down on the ground and Nathu inflicted knife-blows to him. Her (Mst Dalis) husband (Kishore) was then taken to hospital where Nathu also told in presence of Prabhat and Mst. Dali that he had inflicted knife-blows to him. Prabhat PW 1 who lodged the report at the police station, has been declared hostile. He tried to save Nathu. The reason was obvious that Nathu accused is his nephew. Nathu accused and deceased Kishore were real brothers. Nobody wanted to report the matter to the police, because, the dispute had taken place in between two real brothers. This was the reason that they did not inform the police but took Kishore to hospital for medical treatment. When ultimately Kishore died in the hospital, Prabhat submitted the report, Ex. P. 1, at the police station. This shows that the deceased and the accused being real brothers and there being no other male member in their house except Prabhat who is their uncle, they wanted to hush up the matter and did not lodge any report. But, when Kishore died in the hospital, the report was submitted in the police. On account of being uncle, PW 1 Prabhat tried to save the accused. But, he could not deny this
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
