IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pankaj Bhandari, Anoop Kumar Dhand, JJ.
Bhupendra Singh S/o Shri Ratan Lal– Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2018, D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 259 of 2018
Decided On : 21-02-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) and 313 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 341, 323 and 325 - Probation of fenders Act 1958 - Section 4 and 5 – Criminal Trial – Offence of Murder – Injuries/Wounds/Weapons – Appeal against conviction - informant he received a telephonic call of Bhoor Singh Jatav who told that his son has expired in a quarrel taken place in 'Barat'- Immediately after getting the information, he reached Government Hospital,, where Bhoor Singh, Sangram Singh, Sher Singh, Sunil and other 'baratis', residents of the vicinity met him and they told that at the time of departure of Barat, Bachchu Singh, Govinda, Ghanshyam, Bijendra, Ramdhan, Kedar, Kailash, Prakash gave beating to his son-by 'Sariya' (iron rod) and also gave beating from kicks and fists. Bachchu Singh was armed with 'Sariya' (iron rod) and rest of the persons gave beating to Vikram Singh from kicks and fists. When Sangram Singh, Sher Singh, Sunil and Bhoor Singh were tried to intervene then these persons also gave beating to them with kicks and fists, due to which these persons also sustained injuries – Held, Court find that there was no premeditation to the incident and fatal injury was inflicted to Vikram by appellant by 'lathi', which is commonly carried in villages. Based on which, it cannot be said that he was carrying 'lathi' with him with intention to commit crime. The single injury inflicted by the appellant proved fatal, as has been deposed by PW-10 Dr., who conducted Post- mortem upon the body of the deceased and prepared Post- mortem report - On a careful perusal of the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses, we find that there was no premeditation to the incident and the fatal injury was inflicted to Vikram by the appellant by 'lathi', which is commonly carried in villages. Based on which, it cannot be said that he was carrying 'lathi' with him with intention to commit the crime. The single injury inflicted by the appellant proved fatal, as has been deposed by PW-10 Dr., who conducted the Post- mortem upon the body of the deceased and prepared the Post- mortem report - Impugned judgment of trial Court stands modified - Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Reportable :
1. Both these criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence same are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Both the criminal appeals have been filed by the accused appellants under Section 374(2) Cr.PC against the judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Bharatpur (for short 'the learned trial court') in Sessions Case No.42/2016 (State of Rajasthan v. Bijendra & Ors.), whereby the learned trial court while acquitting appellants Bijendra Singh & Ghanshyam for the offence under section 302 IPC, extended benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of of fenders Act 1958 (for short 'the Act of 1958') for the offence under sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC and directed them to deposit compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each, under Section 5 of the Act of the Probation of fenders Act, 1958 and also directed that out of the said amount of compensation, Rs.40,000/- be paid to the wife of the deceased Smt. Neeraj. The learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 11.01.2018 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Bhupendra as under:-
| Conviction for the offence under Section | Sentence Awarded | Fine Amount | Default in payment of fine |
| 341 IPC | One mont simple imprisonment | - | - |
| 323 IPC | One year Rigorous imprisonment | - | - |
| 325 IPC | Three years' rigorous imprisonment | 1000/- | One month rigorous |
| 302 IPC | Life imprisonment | 50,000/- | Six months' rigorous imprisonment |
3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Briefly, the facts arising out from the written report (Ex.P1) submitted by informant Rameshwar (PW1) are that on 7.7.2014, 'Barat' of Satish and Lokesh, sons of Ramdhan Jatav came to Bharatapur Chandan Garden Marriage Home, Near Sogariya Mohalla, Bharatpur. In the said 'Barat' his son Vikram Singh also came. In the night, on 8.7.2014 at about 1.30 A.M., he received a telephonic call of Bhoor Singh Jatav who told that his son has expired in a quarrel taken place in 'Barat'. Immediately after getting the information, he at around 3:00 p.m. reached Government Hospital, Bharatpur, where Bhoor Singh, Sangram Singh, Sher Singh, Sunil and other 'baratis', residents of the vicinity met him and they told that at the time of departure of Barat, Bachchu Singh, Govinda, Ghanshyam, Bijendra, Ramdhan, Kedar, Kailash, Prakash gave beating to his son- Vikram Singh by 'Sariya' (iron rod) and also gave beating from kicks and fists. Bachchu Singh was armed with 'Sariya' (iron rod) and rest of the persons gave beating to Vikram Singh from kicks and fists. When Sangram Singh, Sher Singh, Sunil and Bhoor Singh were tried to intervene then these persons also gave beating to them with kicks and fists, due to which these persons also sustained injuries. In injured condition Vikram Singh was taken to Arora Hospital, where he was declared dead. Dead body of Vikram Singh was kept in the mortuary of the Government Hospital. His son Vikram Singh was murdered by Bachchu Singh, Govinda, Ghanshyam, Vijendra, Ramdhan, Kedar, Kailash and Prakash from 'Sariya' (iron rod) and kicks and fists. Upon this written report (Ex.P1), first information report No.574/2014 (Ex.P23) was registered at Police Station, Mathura Gate, District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 302 IPC against the accused persons and other co-accused persons. After conclusion of investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against Bhupendra Singh, Bijendra Singh and Ghanshyam for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 325, 302 IPC. Since the co-accused Bachchu Singh was absconding, therefore, investigation was kept pending against him under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the above-named accused persons for the offence under sections 323, 341, 325 and 302/34 IPC, who denied the charges,
Chamru Budhwa v. . State of Madhya Pradesh
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the circumstances and intentio....
The lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
The judgment reinforces the principle that prior enmity and the nature of the attack can establish intent in murder cases, leading to a conviction under Section 302 IPC despite arguments for lesser c....
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
The court upheld the conviction based solely on one credible witness's testimony, affirming that quality of evidence is more critical than quantity in criminal cases.
There is no legal impediment for convicting a person on sole testimony of eye-witness, but if there is doubt about testimony, Court will insist on corroboration.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.