Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 75
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Roopa - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2014
Decided On : 19-01-2019
Pradeep Shah, Adv., C.S. Ojha, Adv.
In cases of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to cause death. A single blow inflicted in the heat of passion over a trivial issue may not be sufficient to establish the necessary intent.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302/34 IPC - CONVICTION FOR MURDER - SINGLE STICK BLOW RESULTING IN DEATH - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - COMMON OBJECT - ACQUITTAL OF CO-ACCUSED - SENTENCE MODIFICATION - SECTION 304 PART-II IPC:
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased, Rama, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that the accused-appellants assaulted Rama with sticks and fists, causing his death. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed that they were falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-appellant Roopa inflicted a single stick blow on the head of the deceased, causing his death. However, the court held that there was no intention to cause death and that the incident occurred in the heat of passion over a trivial issue. The court also found that the other two accused-appellants, Dharma and Kogli, were not armed with any weapons and did not inflict any serious injuries on the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused-appellants had the intention to cause death when they assaulted the deceased? 2. Whether the other two accused-appellants, Dharma and Kogli, were guilty of murder along with Roopa?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the single stick blow inflicted by Roopa was not intended to cause death, as there was no premeditation or prior meeting of minds between the accused-appellants. The court relied on the fact that the incident occurred over a trivial issue and that there was no evidence of any prior enmity between the accused-appellants and the deceased. 2. The court held that the other two accused-appellants, Dharma and Kogli, were not guilty of murder as there was no evidence that they inflicted any serious injuries on the deceased. The court noted that the postmortem report did not reveal any corresponding injuries on the deceased's body.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused-appellants Dharma and Kogli of the murder charges. The court also convicted Roopa of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.03.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 34/2011 whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months simple imprisonment.
2. Briefly the facts arising out from the complaint lodged by PW1 Smt. Hanna are that on 10.05.2011 at around 07:00 in the morning, she along with her husband Rama Gameti went for collection of wood in the forest area. They carried wood after cutting a dried tree of 'Gundi'. At around 11:00 in the morning, her brother in law Roopa was standing in the agricultural field. While calling her husband by using foul language, Roopa told him as to why they had brought wood from the 'Gundi' tree. When her husband went near the accused to explain the situation, Dharma, Madhu, Ganesh and Kogli came around and started assaulting and abusing her husband. The accused Roopa inflicted a blow by a stick on the head of her husband due to which he fell on the ground. On watching the incident, her daughter Santa, Nani (second wife of her husband) ran towards her husband to rescue him but the accused persons continued to assault him with fists, kicks and sticks. When they reached near her husband, all the accused persons ran towards the forest. Her husband died on the spot. After informing Naru, Ex- Sarpanch, a report was submitted.
3. On this information, a formal F.I.R. No.92/2011 was registered at Police Station Nai District Udaipur for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. against the accused-appellants.
4. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.
5. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. to the accused appellants, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/31 documents were exhibited. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the evidence adduced against them during the course of trial to which they denied and stated that they were falsely implicated and were innocent.
7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence under section 302/34 IPC vide judgment dated 01.03.2014. Hence this appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has vehemently submitted that the deceased and the accused-appellants were close relatives. The incident occurred on a very trivial issue which was in respect of getting fire wood from the dried tree of 'Gundi' in the forest. A heated altercation ensued between the accused persons and the deceased and acting in the heat of passion, Roopa inflicted a single stick blow on the head of the deceased by Roopa resulting into the fatal injury being sustained by deceased Rama. There was no intention to cause death of the deceased Rama by accused-appellant Roopa.
10. He further submits that the wooden stick by which the injury was inflicted cannot be said to be a deadly weapon.
11. He further submits that a single stick intense blow was inflicted by the accused-appellant Roopa to the deceased at the spur of the movement and since there was no repetition of blows, therefore, there was no intention or motive of the accused during a sudden quarrel over a trivial issue to cause fatal injury to the deceased.
12. He further submits that even as per the statement of PW10 Dr. Anish Ah
