Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sabina and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Fakre Aalam @ Khacchu - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2017, 589 of 2017
Decided On : 30-07-2019
IPC - Murder - Sections 323, 327, 307, 302, 304 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 4/25 - Summary: The court discussed the prosecution's case, eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and the accused's defense. It concluded that the accused inflicted a stab wound on the victim with a knife, resulting in the victim's death. The court found that while the accused had the knowledge that the injury could result in the victim's death, he had no intention to commit murder. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC and dismissed the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for inflicting a stab wound on the victim, resulting in the victim's death. The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, while the accused claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had inflicted the injury on the victim, leading to the victim's death. It concluded that the accused had the knowledge that the injury could result in the victim's death but had no intention to commit murder.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or fell within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the intention of the accused when inflicting the injury, considering the nature of the injury and the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC and dismissed the appeals.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.
2. Accused-Fakre Aalam @ Khacchu had faced trial in FIR No.73 dated 30.04.2014 registered at Police Station Makbara, District Kota City under Sections 323, 327 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Offence under Section 302 IPC was added after the death of victim Mohammad Kasam.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.04.2014 at about 3.30 p.m., Mohammad Kasam was sitting in his cloth shop. Accused came there and asked for Rs.20/- from Mohammad Kasam (father of the complainant) for purchase of liquor. When Mohammad Kasam refused to give money, then accused abused him. Then, accused left the shop after threatening the victim and then came with a knife and gave a blow with it to the victim. As a result, victim started bleeding and was removed to the hospital for treatment. However, victim succumbed to his injury on 15.05.2014.
4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused.
5. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302 and 329 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
6. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eighteen witnesses during trial. Accused when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. He had not committed any offence.
8. Accused examined four witnesses in his defence.
9. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 25.11.2016 ordered the conviction and sentence of the accused under Sections 304, 329 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Act. Hence, the accused has filed appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court, whereas, State has filed appeal seeking conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
10. Learned State counsel has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Accused after threatening the victim had returned to his shop with a knife and had inflicted injury to him. Hence, it was established that the accused had the intention to commit the offence of murder.
11. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. All the witnesses were interested witnesses and had deposed falsely against the accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that in case conviction of the accused was liable to be upheld under Section 304 IPC, the sentence of the accused qua imprisonment be reduced.
12. Present case relates to murder of Mohammad Kasam. Case rests on eye-witness account.
13. Complainant-Mohammad Rafiq while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Statement of the complainant is corroborated by PW-4 Kamruddin, PW-5 Abdul Rashid, PW-7 Mustak Ahmad, PW-8 Sagir Ahmad, PW14 Abdul Latif Ansari and PW-15 Zafar Ahmad.
14. PW-10 Dr. Arun Sharma deposed that on 01.05.2014, he had medically examined Mohammad Kasam and found one injury on his person. He proved the injury report of the victim Exhibit-P-16. He further deposed that the stab injury was result of a knife.
15. PW-12 Dr. Surendra Meena deposed that on 15.05.2014, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mohammad Kasam and he proved postmortem examination report Exhibit-P-20. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the deceased had suffered only one injury and had undergone an operation.
16. The other witnesses have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by them.
17. DW-1 Kamruddin deposed that on 30.04.2014, one person had hit another person with a knife and had run away. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not seen the face of the assailant.
18. DW-2 Abdul Sattar, DW-3 Aamin and DW-4 Chhannu Bai have corroborated statement of D
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
