Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 524
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
Goverdhan Bardhar, Manoj Kumar Vyas, JJ.
Munesh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 2017
Decided On : 04-08-2020
Rinesh Gupta, Advocate, Anurag Meena, Advocate, Aniket Sharma, Advocate, N.S. Gurjar, Advocate, Rahul Sharma, Advocate, Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate
The distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sentence for culpable homicide.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 374 CR.P.C. - SECTIONS 323, 302 IPC - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - FACT OF THE CASE, FINDING OF THE COURT, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI, FINAL DECISION, MAIN LEGAL POINT, CATEGORY AND SUB-CATEGORY
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for murder under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of the deceased, Siyaram, during a fight over the construction of a "kotdi" in a bada. The appellant's conviction was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were family members of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a lathi on the head, causing injuries that led to his death. However, the court also found that the assault was not premeditated and that the appellant had acted in the heat of the moment, without any intention to kill the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. 2. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant's assault on the deceased was not premeditated and that he had acted in the heat of the moment, without any intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, the appellant's offense was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC and not murder under Section 302 IPC. 2. The court modified the sentence imposed on the appellant, reducing it from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, altering the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC and modifying the sentence accordingly.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 12.5.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions case No. 34/14 (81/14) (in FIR No. 35/14) registered at P.S. Langra, Dist. Karauli, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under:-
Under Section 323 I.P.C. : sentencing to 1 year S.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo sentence of 1 (One) Month S.I.
Under Section 302 I.P.C. sentencing him to Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25000/- and in default to further undergo sentence of 1 (One) year S.I.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that complainant Meerabai (P.W.1) submitted a written report Ex.P.1 on 16.3.2014 at 3.15 p.m. to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Langra, Dist. Karauli, and on the basis of which, an FIR Ex.P.2 was got registered at Police Station Langra, Dist. Karauli, wherein it was stated that on the fateful day, i.e., 11.3.2014 at 1 p.m., her son Khushiram was constructing kotdi in the bada of buffalos. Thereafter, some members of her family i.e. Munesh S/o Haricharan, Shirmohar S/o Ramcharan, Haricharan S/o Pacchu and Leela W/o Haricharan along-with Munni W/o Shirmohar came at the place of incident having Lathi and danda in their hands and they started beating her son Khushiram. During beatings when her son started quarreling, her husband Siyaram came to rescue but he too was beaten by accused persons. Shirmohar caught hold of him, then Munesh gave lathi blow on his head. Her husband became unconscious and thereafter she reached at the spot. Few villagers namely Ramjilal, Master Badri S/o Rambabu, Ramdayal reached there. They tried to rescue and thereafter Badri, Dayalu took injured to the Karauli hospital, from where he was referred to Jaipur, where her husband died during treatment on 15.3.2014 at 10.20 a.m. Hence this report.
3. The police on the basis of the above report, registered the FIR No.35/2014 Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341,307 and 302 IPC. After investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet under Sections 341,323 and 302 I.P.C..
4. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellant Under Sections 341, 323 and 302 I.P.C.. The accused appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced some documents to prove its case. In defence 6 witnesses were examined.
6. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, acquitted the accused appellant from the charge Under Section 341 IPC and convicted the accused appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above, vide judgment dated 12/5/2017. Hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the conviction of the appellant is against the facts and circumstances of the case, the material and evidence available on record as well as the law applicable.
8. It is submitted that the FiR has been lodged after an inordinate delay. The incident has taken place on 11/3/2014 at 1.00 PM and Written Report Ex.P.1 was submitted on 16/3/2014 at 3.15 PM, on the basis of which the FIR Ex.P.2 was got registered. No reasonable explanation has come on record for lodging the FIR after such an inordinate delay. Thus, the conviction of the accused appellant cannot be sustained at all.
9. It is further submitted that P.W.1 Meera Bai is not an eye witness of the occurrence as she has stated that when the accused appellant was giving beating to Siyaram and he has given 8 blow by lathi but as per the Post Mortem Report, he has received only 5 injuries on his body. She has further stated that 4 persons came there to save him. P.W.3 Ramji lal, P.W.4 Phool Singh, P.W.5 Ram Dayal and P.W.6 Badari Lal, all of them reached there after the incident. Therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant, based on the statement of P.W.1 Meera Bai is bad in eye of law. Thus from the above, it is clear that she is not a tru
