Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma, JJ.
Pramod Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1903 of 2018 Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 412 of 2018 and D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1938 of 2018
Decided On : 12-12-2018
MK Kaushik and Mr. DS Naruka, Advocates, for the Appellants; Sonia Shandilya, PP, for the Respondents; Rajeev Bhushan Bansal, Advocate, for the Complainant
1. Occurrence under provocation falls under one of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC. 2. Providing false information to screen offenders constitutes an offence under Section 201 IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 304 PART-II, 201 IPC - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - OFFENCE UNDER PROVOCATION - SUBSTITUTION OF CONVICTION - INTERFERENCE IN SENTENCE - SECTION 300 IPC EXCEPTION - SECTION 201 IPC - FALSE INFORMATION TO SCREEN OFFENDERS - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - JUSTIFICATION - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - EXPLANATION BY PROSECUTION - HOSTILE WITNESSES - STATEMENTS - CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - RECOVERY OF BAT - CULPABLE HOMICIDE - MURDER - PROVOCATION - SENTENCE - INTERFERENCE - DISCLOSURE OF INCIDENCE - FALSE INFORMATION - MAIN OFFENDER - SCREENING OFFENDERS - SENTENCE - INTERFERENCE - SUBSTITUTION OF SENTENCE - SECTION 302 IPC TO SECTION 304 PART-II IPC - SECTION 201 IPC - SIX MONTHS SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT WITH FINE.
Fact of the Case:
Accused-appellant Bajranglal was convicted for causing head injury to deceased-Mukesh with a bat, resulting in his death. Accused-appellants Pramod Kumar and Aslam were convicted for providing false information to screen the offender. The delay in lodging the FIR was justified due to false information provided by Pramod Kumar and Aslam, leading to a delay in understanding the actual cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the occurrence took place under provocation, thus falling under one of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC. The court also found that accused-appellants Pramod Kumar and Aslam did not disclose the true facts about the incident, amounting to giving false information to screen the offenders.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence led by the prosecution makes out a case for offence under Section 302 IPC or it falls in one of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC? 2. Whether a case for offence under Section 201 IPC is made out against accused-appellants Pramod Kumar and Aslam? 3. Whether the sentence for the offence under Section 201 IPC needs to be interfered with?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the occurrence took place under provocation, thus falling under one of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC. The court relied on the statements of witnesses and the recovery of the bat used in the incident to conclude that the accused-appellant Bajranglal caused head injury to the deceased with a bat under provocation. 2. The court held that a case for offence under Section 201 IPC is made out against accused-appellants Pramod Kumar and Aslam as they did not disclose the true facts about the incident, amounting to giving false information to screen the offenders. 3. The court interfered with the sentence for the offence under Section 201 IPC, considering the fact that the accused-appellants later disclosed the true facts about the incident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeals in part. The conviction of accused-appellant Bajranglal for offence under Section 302 IPC was substituted with Section 304 Part-II IPC, and the sentence was reduced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The conviction of accused-appellants Pramod Kumar and Aslam for offence under Section 201 IPC was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each.
JUDGMENT
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - By this batch of criminal appeals, a challenge is made to the order dated 26th September, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Session Case No.10/2016 (42/2014). The accused-appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced as under:
Accused-appellant-Bajranglal:
For offence under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
Accused-appellant-Pramod Kumar:
For offence under Section 201 IPC - Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
Accused-appellant-Aslam:
For offence under Section 201 IPC - Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
2. Learned counsel appearing for accused-appellant-Bajranglal, initially, contested the appeal to seek acquittal of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC but, later on, arguments were pressed to bring the case under one of the Exceptions given under Section 300 IPC. It was with the prayer that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, it does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II IPC. It is not only that no motive to cause occurrence could be proved by the prosecution but it was not otherwise a case of pre-meditation so as to cause occurrence. In fact, the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment, that too, under the provocation given by none else but by deceased-Mukesh. According to learned counsel for appellant-Bajranglal, the case falls under one of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC. For the reasons given above, conviction for offence under Section 302 IPC has been challenged with the prayer to bring it under Section 304 Part-II IPC and, consequently, to interfere in the sentence. The detailed arguments therefor have been made and would be dealt with by us in later part of this judgment.
3. So far as accused-appellants-Pramod Kumar and Aslam are concerned, arguments have been made to challenge their conviction for offence under Section 201 IPC. A reference of the statements of PW4-Pawan Kumar and PW5-Mahipal apart from written report, Exhibit-P5 and FIR, Exhibit-P6, has been given. It is to show that they did not supply any false information to screen the offender so as to convict accused-appellants-Pramod Kumar and Aslam for offence under Section 201 IPC. The perusal of Exhibit-P5 and Exhibit-P6 shows that allegation against the accused is not for supply of false information so as to screen the offenders but is that proper treatment to deceased-Mukesh could not be given due to it.
4. A reference of statements of PW5-Mahipal and PW6-Madan has been given to support the arguments. The deceased-Mukesh was taken to different hospitals i.e. Pilani, Chirawa, Hissar and even to Jaipur. As per statements of the witnesses, proper treatment to the deceased could not be given in absence of proper information by appellants-Pramod Kumar and Aslam.
5. Learned counsel submits that proper disclosure about incidence was made by appellants. They had stated that deceased-Mukesh was under the influence of liquor and sustained head injury. In view of the above, conviction for offence under Section 201 IPC is not made out. The argument has also been raised for causing interference in the sentence. It is after referring facts of the case. He submits that sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment needs to be interfered.
6. The arguments have been raised by both the counsel even in regard to delay in lodging of FIR. The FIR was lodged with delay of 37 days and it remained unexplained. The delay in lodging FIR is fatal and on the aforesaid ground also, accused-appellants deserve to be acquitted.
7. Learned counsel for appellants have given the facts in seriatim to show t
