Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE and NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JJ.
Sultan Ram & ors.
Vs.
State of Rajasthan
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 143/2005
Decided on: 4th February, 2014
Mr. V.R. Bajwa for the appellants.
Mr. Javed Choudhary PP for the State.
Mr. S.K. Singodiya for the complainant.
The intention to commit murder is a crucial element in determining the offense of murder. In the absence of such intention, the accused may be convicted of a lesser offense, such as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 304 PART I, 323, 447 IPC - FACT OF THE CASE, FINDING OF THE COURT, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI, FINAL DECISION, MAIN LEGAL POINT, CATEGORY AND SUB-CATEGORY
Fact of the Case:
A family dispute arose between two brothers, Sultan and Girdhari, over a stray cow entering their joint guwadi and eating gwar grass. The dispute escalated into a scuffle, resulting in injuries to both parties. Girdhari later succumbed to his injuries, and Sultan was charged with murder (Section 302 IPC), while his wife Mooli Devi and son Radhey Shyam were charged with murder with common intention (Section 302 read with 34 IPC).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident was sudden and occurred due to a trifle matter. Both parties sustained injuries, with the accused party suffering more severe injuries, including lacerated wounds and injuries to vital body parts. The court also noted that the prosecution's case against Mooli Devi and Radhey Shyam was weak, as they had no prior involvement in the dispute and their injuries indicated their presence at the scene.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused had the intention to commit murder. 2. Whether the accused Mooli Devi and Radhey Shyam had a common intention to commit murder. 3. Whether the accused were guilty of lesser offenses, such as causing hurt (Section 323 IPC) and criminal trespass (Section 447 IPC).
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused Sultan had the intention to commit murder. While he inflicted a fatal injury on the deceased, the court found that he did not have the knowledge that the injury would result in death. 2. The court found that there was no evidence of a common intention between Mooli Devi and Radhey Shyam to commit murder. They had no prior involvement in the dispute, and their injuries indicated that they were present at the scene but did not actively participate in the assault. 3. The court held that the accused were guilty of causing hurt and criminal trespass. The evidence showed that they had exchanged abuses and engaged in a scuffle, causing injuries to both parties.
Final Decision: 1. The court acquitted the accused Sultan of murder (Section 302 IPC) but convicted him of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC). He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but since he had already served more than 10 years, he was ordered to be released forthwith. 2. The court acquitted Mooli Devi and Radhey Shyam of murder with common intention (Section 302 read with 34 IPC) but upheld their convictions for causing hurt (Section 323 IPC) and criminal trespass (Section 447 IPC). They were sentenced to the time already served.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned public prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the complainant.
2. Being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.101/2003 (170/2003), the accused appellants have preferred this appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:
Sultan Ram
"Under Section 302 IPC: Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment to further undergo R.I. for three months;
Under Section 323 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for one year;
Under Section 447 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for three months;
Mooli Devi and Radhey Shyam
"Under Section 302/34 IPC: Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment to further undergo R.I. for three months;
Under Section 323 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for one year;
Under Section 447 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for three months;
3. Instant criminal case was initiated on a parcha bayan of one Ved Prakash which was recorded on 16.06.2003 at Government Hospital, Sikar. As per his statement, the informant and his father are four brothers. The eldest is Sultan who is having 5 sons and 2 daughters; second in number was the father of the informant who was having 6 sons; and the youngest one of them is informant Ved Prakash. The third son is Kajod aged 30 years and fourth son is aged 25 years. All the four brothers (who are sons of Bhudaram) were living separately. Further it was stated by the informant that a stray cow had entered their residence in the night as the elder brother of his father (tau) had left the gate of the joint guwadi opened. When the father of the informant asked his elder brother regarding leaving the gate opened, as a result of which the stray cow had entered into the guwadi and eaten the gwar grass, the elder brother had hurled abuses and changed the scene into scuffle and by giving blow on the head of the father of the informant, who was alone at that time by lathi. Further it was stated that the father of the informant became unconcious on account of the injury sustained by him on the head, eyes and ribs etc. The informant was working in the agricultural field at the time of incident which was 6.30 to 7.00 a.m. It was also stated that the maarpeet had been done by accused Sultan and two uncles of the informant in the joint guwadi. The house of Sultan was about 200 yards away. The agricultural fields of the parties were having a common gate. As per the parcha bayan, the first blow on the head was caused by the elder brother of the father of the informant and thereafter his four sons, namely; Radhey Shyam, Kailash, Umesh, Rajesh and Mooli Devi wife of Sultan had also come with lathis in their hand and inflicted injuries to him. Thereafter, the informant and his uncle both came running at the place of occurrence and injuries were inflicted to them also. The informant sustained injuries on his head and above the eye and his uncle Kajod sustained injuries on the leg by lathis. Arjun, the uncle of the informant, also sustained injuries on the hand. His younger brother Subhash sustained injuries on his hand. It is also stated that the elder brother of the father of the informant is a person of quarrelling nature.
4. On the basis of aforesaid parcha bayan, a regular first information report came to be registered at police station Udaipurwati for the offences under sections 143, 452, 323 and 504 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation commenced, during the course of which Girdhari Lal died and as such the offence under section 302 IPC was added. During the course of investigation, the police inspected the place of incident, prepared a site plan, inquest proceedings were also drawn, injured persons were medically examined, accused persons were taken into custody and some recoveries were made at their instance, the statements of the pro
