Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Nirmaljit Kaur, Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Om Prakash – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2011
Decided On : 20-09-2018
G.R. Punia, Adv., Rajesh Punia, Adv., J.P.S. Choudhary, Adv.
In a murder case under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the murder. The court will consider all relevant evidence, including witness testimony, motive, and any mitigating factors, in reaching its decision.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - WITNESS TESTIMONY - HANDWRITING EXPERT OPINION - MOTIVE - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 106 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - SUDDEN FIGHT - SECTION 304 PART II IPC: 1. In a criminal appeal challenging a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, the court evaluated the evidence presented during the trial, including witness testimony, handwriting expert opinion, motive, and the burden of proof. 2. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder. The testimony of key witnesses, including the deceased's brother and an eyewitness, provided a consistent and detailed account of the events leading up to the murder. 3. The court also considered the appellant's motive for killing his wife, which was evident from a note he had written expressing his frustration and intention to kill her. The handwriting expert's opinion corroborated the authenticity of the note. 4. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the case should be converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court held that the ingredients of murder were fully present and proven, and that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act by providing a reasonable explanation for the deceased's death. 5. The court distinguished the present case from precedents cited by the appellant, finding that the facts and circumstances were different and did not warrant a reduction in the conviction. 6. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, including the deceased's brother and an eyewitness, who provided a detailed account of the events leading up to the murder. The prosecution also presented a note written by the appellant expressing his frustration and intention to kill his wife, which was corroborated by a handwriting expert. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder. The court relied on the consistent and detailed testimony of the eyewitnesses, the corroborating evidence of the handwriting expert, and the appellant's motive for killing his wife as evident from the note he had written.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder. 2. Whether the case should be converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC. 3. Whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act by providing a reasonable explanation for the deceased's death.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder. The court relied on the consistent and detailed testimony of the eyewitnesses, the corroborating evidence of the handwriting expert, and the appellant's motive for killing his wife as evident from the note he had written. 2. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the case should be converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC. The court held that the ingredients of murder were fully present and proven, and that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act by providing a reasonable explanation for the deceased's death. 3. The court distinguished the present case from precedents cited by the appellant, finding that the facts and circumstances were different and did not warrant a reduction in the conviction.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant to challenge the judgment dated 14/12/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 22/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2. The fact narrated in the complaint lodged by Bhanwar Lal discloses that he is resident of Igyar. His sister Sugnai was married to accused Om Prakash son of Luna Ram Jat, R/o. Tarnau for last 20 years. She was in the matrimonial home for last 10-11 years. She had a son who was five years of age. His sister Sugnai was harassed and beaten by her husband Om Prakash, mother-in-law Radha and brother-in-law Babulal for last 4 to 5 years. Today, he received a call on which he went to Tarnau at 12 O' clock. When he went to Sugnai's house, she was sitting in the room upstairs in a state of fear. When he asked Om Prakash, he told that his sister quarrels with him and when he asked his sister Sugnai, she could not say anything under fear. He requested to send Sugnai along with him but Om Prakash refused. Thereafter, he and Shaitan Ram who accompanied him went back to their village at around 2 p.m. At around 5 p.m., he received an information that Sugnai has been killed. On getting this information, he along with his family members including Tulcharam, Ram Prasad, Narayan Ram and Bhanwar Lal Manda went to Tarnau. He saw Sugani was lying dead on a cot. She was having injury marks in her neck. She had been killed by her husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law by beating.
3. On this information, a formal F.I.R. No.13/2009 was registered and investigation was conducted and challan was filed under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant.
4. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302. The accused denied the same and preferred trial in the matter.
5. During the trial, as many as 28 prosecution witnesses were examined and in all 33 documents were exhibited.
6. Thereafter, accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence adduced during trial to which he denied and submitted that he is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the matter.
7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides and after taking into consideration the statements of witnesses and the documents exhibited, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and passed the sentence as stated here-in-above.
8. For appreciating the facts in the present case, we have scanned the statements recorded during the trial along with documents produced and exhibited before the trial Court.
9. The entire case hinges on the testimony of PW.15 Dr. Rajendra Singh Kalwi, PW.18 Shaitan Ram, PW.21 Tulcharam and PW.23 Bhanwar Lal.
10. Pw.23 Bhanwar Lal S/o Radha Kishan is the brother of deceased Sugnai. He in his statement has stated that Sugnai was married to Om Prakash for last 18-20 years. Sugnai was staying with the accused for last 10-11 years and was having a son who is 5-7 years of age. Accused Om Prakash, Babulal and mother-in-law Radha were harassing the deceased. On having called by Om Prakash, he went to Tarnau along with Shaitan Ram and met his sister Sugnai and Om Prakash in the room situated at the first floor. Om Prakash informed him that there was some heated altercation between him and Sugnai. At that time, Sugnai was afraid. When he asked Om Prakash to send Sugnai along with him, he refused and then he asked mother-in-law and father-in-law of Sugnai to send her with him, they also refused. At around 4-5 p.m. Tulcha Ram came and informed him that he went to Tarnau today to meet his daughter Raami and when he was going to meet Sugnai, Om Prakash met him on the way and inform
