Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN
SANGEET LODHA, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
SUKHDEV SINGH — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2007
Decided on : 21-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Nishant Bora, Arun, Pallav Sharma, J.P.S. Choudhary, H.S.S. Kharlia, Trilok Singh, Adv.
The act of the accused persons in causing homicidal death of the deceased Sukhraj Singh was without premeditation in sudden fight or in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and they did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and for this reason, the provisions of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC are attracted in the matter.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - EYE WITNESSES - RELIABILITY - CORROBORATION - EXCEPTION 4 TO SECTION 300 IPC - SUDDEN FIGHT - HEAT OF PASSION - UNDUE ADVANTAGE - CRUELTY - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 304 PART I/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Sukhraj Singh under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of eye witnesses who were closely related to the deceased. The appellants contended that the conviction was based on unreliable testimony and that the incident had occurred all of a sudden without any premeditation. They also argued that the offence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and thus, their conviction should not go beyond Section 304 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the testimony of the eye witnesses was reliable and was corroborated by other evidence on record. The court found that the accused appellants had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased with an intention to cause death. However, the court also found that the act of the accused persons in causing homicidal death of the deceased Sukhraj Singh was without premeditation in sudden fight or in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and they did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and for this reason, the provisions of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC are attracted in the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC was based on reliable evidence? 2. Whether the incident had occurred all of a sudden without any premeditation? 3. Whether the offence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of the eye witnesses was reliable and was corroborated by other evidence on record. The court found that the accused appellants had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased with an intention to cause death. 2. The court found that the act of the accused persons in causing homicidal death of the deceased Sukhraj Singh was without premeditation in sudden fight or in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and they did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and for this reason, the provisions of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC are attracted in the matter. 3. The court held that the offence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC was set aside and instead they were convicted for offence under Section 304 Part I/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The appellants have already undergone the sentence for the period more than the sentence awarded. Accordingly, they were directed to be released from the custody forthwith if they are not required in any other case.
Sangeet Lodha, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.9.07 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Srikaranpur in Sessions Case No.16/05, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine Rs. 5,000/- each; on default in payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
2. In the nutshell, the prosecution story may be summarized thus: On 30.11.04, complainant Navraj Singh submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) stating therein that in the morning around 10 A.M., he alongwith Sukhraj Singh and Devendra Singh went to the agriculture field comprising murabba no.21 chak 23F Rohi Kaminpura for lifting irrigation availing his water turn. Out of the said field, Sukhraj Singh had taken 12.5 bighas from Devendra Singh and 4 bighas from Darshan Singh for cultivation on contract basis. But Sukhdev Singh s/o Harjinder Singh wanted to avail the water turn of his uncle Darshan Singh. On this issue, on several occasions, the dispute arose in between Sukhdev Singh and Sukhraj Singh. On the fateful day, for convincing Sukhdev Singh, the complainant and Devendra Singh were taken by Sukhraj Singh to the outlet (nakka). At the outlet, Sukhdev Singh and his son Amarjeet Singh both were standing with kassi in their hands and while opening the outlet, they were cultivating their field. Around 11 A.M., Sukhraj Singh told Sukhdev Singh and his son Amarjeet Singh that it is his water turn and their water turn will start later. Then Sukhdev Singh told that he may be permitted to avail the water turn to irrigate his mustard crop. While Sukhraj Singh was trying to convince Sukhdev Singh and Amarjeet Singh, at that moment, both father and son told Sukhraj Singh that he is imposing his leadership for a long, he need to be taught a lesson. Amarjeet Singh while shouting with an intention to cause death, inflicted kassi blow on the head of Sukhraj Singh, due to which, he fell down and blood started oozing out from his head and another kassi blow was inflicted by Sukhdev Singh on the face of Sukhraj Singh, with an intention to cause death. The complainant and Devendra Singh kept on saying that what are you doing, would you kill him, he will get injured, while they were saying so, Amarjeet Singh and Sukhdev Singh inflicted injuries with kassi on the head and face of Sukhraj Singh with an intention to cause death and ran away with kassi towards Kaminpura. On raising hue and cry by them (Navraj Singh and Devendra Singh), Sheoji Kumar, Sukhraj Singh Ex.Sarpanch and Rameshwar Lal etc. who were working in the field and passage nearby came there. Sukhraj Singh was taken to hospital in trolly of Sarpanch Sukhraj Singh.
On the way to the hospital, Sukhraj Singh succumbed to the injuries, whose dead body was kept in mortuary of Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar.
3. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P/1), the police registered the FIR against the accused Sukhdev Singh and Amarjeet Singh for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and the investigation commenced.
4. During the investigation, necessary memos were prepared. Blood stained clothes of the deceased, blood stained soil and control soil were seized. After inquest proceedings, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Accused persons Sukhdev Singh and Amarjeet Singh were arrested and at their instance, blood stained iron kassis were recovered. The articles recovered and seized as aforesaid were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory and FSL report was obtained.
5. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against accused Sukhdev Singh and Amarjeet Singh for offences under Section 302, 302/34 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur. The matter was committed for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur.
6. The trial Judge framed the cha
