2013 Supreme(Raj) 1657

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, Banwari Lal Sharma, JJ.
Gyarsilal, Panchuram and Kalyan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2005 with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2007.
Decided On : 26-08-2013

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offense charged.

Headnote:

The court analyzed the facts of the case and the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Ghanshyam was guilty of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan were guilty of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC. However, the court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan were guilty of the offense under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Kalyan was guilty of the offense under Section 379 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Panchu was guilty of the offense under Section 323 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved two appeals arising out of the same incident. In the first appeal, three accused-appellants, Gyarsilal, Panchuram, and Kalyan, were convicted for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. In the second appeal, the accused-appellant Ghanshyam was convicted for the offense under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the accused-appellants had beaten the deceased, Jyana Devi, and her aunt, Nangi, and that Ghanshyam had inflicted a fatal blow on Jyana's head with a 'kulhari'. The accused-appellants denied the allegations and claimed that they had acted in self-defense.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Ghanshyam was guilty of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan were guilty of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC. However, the court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan were guilty of the offense under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Kalyan was guilty of the offense under Section 379 IPC. The court also found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Panchu was guilty of the offense under Section 323 IPC.

Issues: The issues in the case were: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Ghanshyam was guilty of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan were guilty of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC. 3. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan were guilty of the offense under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. 4. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Kalyan was guilty of the offense under Section 379 IPC. 5. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Panchu was guilty of the offense under Section 323 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Ghanshyam was guilty of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC. The court also held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan were guilty of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC. However, the court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan were guilty of the offense under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. The court also held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Kalyan was guilty of the offense under Section 379 IPC. The court also held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Panchu was guilty of the offense under Section 323 IPC.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Ghanshyam and acquitted him of the charges under Section 302/34 IPC. The court altered the conviction of the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan under Section 302/34 IPC to one under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34, IPC. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants Gyarsilal and Kalyan for the offense under Section 323 IPC. The court also upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Kalyan for the offense under Section 379 IPC. The court acquitted the accused-appellant Panchu of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant Panchu for the offense under Section 323 IPC.