2015 Supreme(Raj) 2002
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, Prakash Gupta, JJ.
Chhota @ Koka & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1630 of 2007.
Decided On : 27-11-2015
Advocates:
For the Appellants:Anshuman Saxena, Advocate.
For the State: V.S. Godara, Public Prosecutor.
The intention to cause death or causing such injury as the accused knew was likely to cause death is an essential element of the offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 341, 323 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX - WITNESSES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - POSTMORTEM REPORT - INJURIES - CAUSE OF DEATH - INTENTION - CONVICTION - SENTENCE - APPEAL - SECTION 304 PART-I IPC - SECTION 437A CRPC - BAIL CONDITIONS:
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between two groups over a minor incident involving a skating accident. The accused party, including Chhota @ Koka, Lala @ Lalchand, and Rajesh, attacked the deceased, Shekhar @ Suraj, and his brothers, Radhey Shyam @ Bunty and Ravi Kumar. Shekhar sustained head injuries and multiple other injuries, while Radhey Shyam and Ravi Kumar sustained minor injuries. Chhota @ Koka was also injured in the incident. Shekhar later died due to the head injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused party had no intention to murder the deceased but acted in retaliation for the injuries sustained by Chhota @ Koka. The court also found that Chhota @ Koka had the intention of causing death or causing such injury as he knew was likely to cause death. The court convicted Chhota @ Koka for the offense under Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced him to the period already undergone by him. The court upheld the conviction of Lala @ Lalchand and Rajesh for the offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 341 (wrongful restraint) IPC and sentenced them to the period already undergone by them.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused party had the intention to murder the deceased? 2. Whether Chhota @ Koka had the intention of causing death or causing such injury as he knew was likely to cause death? 3. Whether the conviction of the accused-appellants for the offenses under Sections 302, 323, and 341 IPC was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accused party did not have the intention to murder the deceased but acted in retaliation for the injuries sustained by Chhota @ Koka. 2. The court held that Chhota @ Koka had the intention of causing death or causing such injury as he knew was likely to cause death. 3. The court held that the conviction of Chhota @ Koka for the offense under Section 304 Part-I IPC was justified, while the conviction of Lala @ Lalchand and Rajesh for the offenses under Sections 323 and 341 IPC was also justified.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction of Chhota @ Koka for the offense under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and he was instead convicted for the offense under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The conviction of Lala @ Lalchand and Rajesh for the offenses under Sections 323 and 341 IPC was maintained, and they were sentenced to the period already undergone by them.
Judgement Key Points
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside tags or otherwise) and any specific analysis request (e.g., key points, summary, risks). I'll reference relevant sections using the specified format, e.g., (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal filed by three appellants namely; Chhota @ Koka, Lala @ Lalchand and Rajesh is directed against the judgement dated 05.07.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.79/2006 by which each of them have been convicted for offence under section 302, 341 and 323 IPC. While they have been sentenced to life imprisonment for conviction under Section 302 of IPC with fine of Rs. 2,000, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months, they have been awarded simple imprisonment of one month for conviction under section 341 and simple imprisonment of one year for conviction under section 323 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.7.2006, complainant-Radhey Shyam @ Bunti (PW1) lodged a written report (Ex.P1) at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur alleging therein that in the night of 1.7.2006 at around 7.30 p.m., he along with his brothers Ravi and Shekhar @ Suraj went to Valmiki Harijan Basti to collect money from the contractor, but the contractor was not found there. When there were returning back, on the way near the temple of Hanumanji, Koka @ Chhota, Lala, Rajesh etc. intercepted them and started abusing them. Koka was having an iron rod, Lala was having a lathi, Sandeep was having a stick and Rajesh was having a lathi in his hand. They started beating them. When he tried to intervene, they also tried to beat him. Shekhar @ Suraj fell down and thereafter, they ran away. Shekhar @ Suraj was brought to the house in unconscious condition and thereafter, he was taken to the emergency ward of SMS Hospital and in the night at around 11 p.m. Shekhar @ Suraj had died. Doctor informed him that the deceased had died on account of head injury and he should take necessary steps in this regard, therefore, he is lodging this report. On the basis of aforesaid report of the complainant, police registered a case FIR No. 133/2006 for the offences under section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302 IPC and started the investigation. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants for the offences under section 302, 323, 341 and 34 IPC. On committal, learned trial court framed charge against the accused-appellants for the offences U/s. 341, 323, 302 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and also exhibited 35 documents and 7 articles. Defence however exhibited only 2 documents. The trial court after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal.
3. Shri Anshuman Saxena, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that there are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of witnesses and therefore no reliance can be placed on their testimony. It is submitted that though the independent witnesses were available, but they were not produced and examined. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence awarded by the learned trial court is excessive and keeping in view facts of the case and the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, there was no justification to award excessive sentence and therefore conviction of accused-appellants cannot be sustained.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that statement of accused-appellants are not recorded in accordance with the provisions of law as all incriminating circumstances were not put to them and sufficient opportunity of defence was not afforded to them.
5. It is argued that accused-appellant Chhota @ Koka was arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and later on he was implicated falsely in the instant case. In the statement of the injured witnesses namely Radhey Shyam & Bunty (PW1) and Ravi Kumar (PW2), no role was assigned to the accused Lala and Rajesh, therefore, from their testimony, the involvement of accused-appellants Lala and
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
