Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 739
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Ramcharan - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan Through P.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 1989
Decided On : 16-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Rajesh Choudhary, R.S. Raghav
The judgment established the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, emphasizing the relevance of the circumstances of the particular case in determining the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Criminal Appeal - Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. - [Sections 302, 323, 147, 148, 149, 3/25 of Arms Act] - The court discussed the evidence related to the use of firearms, injuries sustained by the deceased, and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The judgment highlighted the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, citing relevant case laws and ultimately altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, reducing the sentence to 10 years RI.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the accused appellant, Ramcharan, being convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC, and 3/25 of Arms Act, for causing the death of Siya Ram. The incident occurred in a sudden fight and passion upon a sudden quarrel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused's act fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, leading to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. The recovery of the weapon of offence was disbelieved, resulting in the alteration of the conviction and reduction of the sentence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the use of firearms, injuries sustained by the deceased, and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on relevant case laws to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder, considering the suddenness of the incident and the absence of pre-meditation. The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was used to judge the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were altered to Section 304 Part I IPC, with the sentence reduced to 10 years RI while maintaining the fine as awarded by the trial court.
Goverdhan Bardhar, J.
This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Ramcharan under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 26.07.1989 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 58/1984 whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and passed the following sentence:
Under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
Under Section 323 IPC - Fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.02.1984 at about 2 PM Onkar Singh Jhala, SHO, Police Station, Mangrol along with police force reached to Village Reejhiya for investigation in case No. 6/84 registered for the offence under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC. On the spot, he found that a dead body of Siya Ram S/o Dhana Lal Meena was lying in the 'Pol' of the house of Shri Kishan Meena. Where a report was made by Ram Prasad S/o Dhanna Lal, to the effect that yesterday at about 12:00 PM, on the canal side, Satyanarayn Dhankar gave beating to Ram Dayal Meena. Today, in the morning, his real brother Siya Ram was going to leave the cattle for grazing to the other pasture land near Talai and he was following his brother. Ghanshyam and Hemraj were coming from the forest land then at the entry point of the street, alongwith them, Ramchandra, Om Prakash, Hem Raj and Badri Lal who was brother in law of Ram Charan gave beating by Gadasi and Lathies. Ram Charan was armed with 12 bore gun and Hemraj armed with a muzzle loading gun. After seeing Ram Charan, his brother Siyaram took U turn in apprehension of attack and tried to hide himself inside the house of Shri Kishan Meena to save his life. When Siyaram tried to peep outside, Ram Charan Dhakar opened fire targeting Siya Ram with a 12 bore gun which hit to the left side of the chest and left hand. Due to gun shot injury, Siyaram died on the spot. At the time of occurrence, Shri Kishan, Narayan, Mansa Ram and Latoor Meena were also present at the spot. Ram Charan had gone along with his brother Hemraj, Om Prakash and Badri Lal brother-in-law of Ram Charan, Brahma and Babu Lal. Badri Lal was armed with Dhariya. Brahma and Babu armed with lathies. When he tried to lift the body of Siya Ram, Brahma gave him a lathi blow on his left hand. After that Surendra came and gave beating with lathies which hurt the middle finger of his left hand. Ram Charan along with his companions assaulted the complainant party and Ram Charan fired 12 bore gun on Siya Ram as a result of fire arm injury he died. It was further stated that all the Dhakars had encircled the village so the report could not be filed. On this, police started investigation for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act.
3. During investigation, blood stained soil, simple soil, pieces of papers and empty cartridges were recovered. Punchnama of the dead body of the deceased was prepared. Post mortem was made of the dead body of the deceased. Accused persons were arrested. At the instance of accused persons, gun, dhariya and lathies were seized. The inquiry was conducted about use and functionality of 12 bore gun and a muzzle loading gun and their licenses. Challan against accused Ram Charan and Hemraj Dhankar was filed under Section 3/25 of Arms Act.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under sections 148,302,307/149 and under section 3/25 of Arms Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 61 documents.
5. Accused appellant was examined under section 313 IPC wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated in the matter. He further stated that
