2013 Supreme(Raj) 881
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Mathur, Banwari Lal Sharma, JJ.
Ramchandra Gudaliya - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2007.
Decided On : 26-02-2013
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mridul Jain, Advocate.
For the State: K.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor.
The distinction between murder under Section 302 of the IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, and the factors considered in determining the appropriate offense.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 304 PART I, 304 PART II INDIAN PENAL CODE - SUMMARY OF FACTS, FINDINGS, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for fatally striking the deceased with a lathi. The appellant claimed that the incident occurred due to a sudden provocation and that he should be convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had intended to cause bodily injury to the deceased likely to cause death, but there was no premeditation and the incident occurred due to grave and sudden provocation. The court held that the appellant's case fell within the purview of Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. 2. Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC should be set aside and substituted with a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: 1. The absence of premeditation and the presence of grave and sudden provocation can reduce the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 2. The nature of the injuries inflicted, the weapon used, and the circumstances surrounding the incident are relevant factors in determining the intent of the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and substituting it with a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The court also modified the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.2.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur convicting the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment in the event of failure to pay the fine.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 20.1.2002, an oral information given by Shri Nanalal (PW-1) to Rajendra Kumar (PW-11) was reduced in writing and on basis of that a criminal case was registered at Police Station Vallabhnagar District Udaipur. As per the information given, deceased Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal father of Nanalal (PW-1), established a 'Shiv Math' in outskirts of village Navaniya and was staying there in a hut all alone. Several trees all around the Math were also planted by Shri Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal. Accused Ramchandra was intending to make some encroachment in the campus of Math, therefore, he was regularly harassing Shri Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal. An information in this regard was also given to the police station. From last about 5-6 days Ramchandra was tiding his buffaloes in the campus of the Math and that was resented by Shri Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal. On 20.1.2002 at about 11:00 AM when Shri Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal was strolling in the campus, Ramchandra came and gave several lathi blows to him. Hearing the noise, Nanalal (PW-1), Chhogalal (PW-3), Kishanlal (PW-10), Jagdish (PW-4), Jaishankar (PW-12) and several other persons rushed towards the spot of occurrence. Looking to the other persons Ramchandra fled from the spot where dead body of Shri Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal was lying.
3. After completing the investigation, the prosecution filed a report before the competent court and the same was committed to the court of Sessions wherefrom the case was transferred for its adjudication to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur. A charge for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused on 14.5.2002 and on denial of the same trial commenced, as desired.
4. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 12 witnesses, out of whom Shri Nanalal (PW-1), Shri Chhogalal (PW-3), Jagdish (PW-4), Kishanlal (PW-10) and Jaishankar (PW-12) were cited as eye witnesses. The prosecution also got several documents exhibited.
5. An opportunity was given to the accused appellant to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances against him in prosecution evidence. While calling the same false, the accused stated that as a matter of fact he was having old possession on the land but deceased Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal, his son Nanalal, Jagdish, Chhogalal, Kishanlal etc. were trying to uproot him from the land aforesaid. On the fateful day Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal with the aid of the persons named above tried to throw him out from the land. While doing so, an attempt was made to gave axe blow. The blow sought to be given was resisted and the axe was snatched from the hand of Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal. While defending himself, Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal received a blow on his back from the handle stick of the axe. The accused then tried to escape himself and Pyarchand @ Prem Rawal while chasing him fell down from a stone wall, thus, received certain injuries, resulting into his death.
6. The testimony of accused was also examined as per provisions of Section 315 Cr.P.C. as DW-1. He also got certain documents exhibited as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3.
7. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the accused and examining the evidence available, the trial court recorded conviction and awarded sentence.
8. In appeal, the only argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is that even by admitting the prosecution case, the offence committed by the accused appellant does not travel beyond the offence described under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
