SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Devendra Kachhawaha, JJ.
Kala - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2015
Decided On : 20-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : JVS Deora
For the Respondents: Farzand Ali, AAG-cum-GA and Anil Joshi, PP

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 325 , 229, 300 and 304 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374(2) and 313 - Culpable homicide of the third degree – Offence of murder - Appellant happens to be husband of deceased - Alleged that after hot verbal exchanges between the appellant herein and Sajki on the issue as to why, she had sent the children to do labour jobs, appellant inflicted lathi blows as a result whereof, she fell down - First informant (brother of the deceased) accompanied reached the place of occurrence and on seeing them, the accused appellant ran away into the jungle was lying outside the house with mark of injuries near the left ribs, abdominal area and on the right thigh - First informant checked his sister for signs of life but realised that she had passed away – Held, Require knowledge of probability of the act causing death. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding clauses - It will be sufficient to say that Clause (4) of Section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons-being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, act having been committed by offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid - case at hand on the anvil of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case are of the view that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained and same deserves to be toned down to the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC - Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is quashed and set aside and instead, he is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC - Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record - Appeal is partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 04.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 92/2014 (363/2014) (C.I.S. No. 1181/2014):

Offence

Sentences

Fine

Fine Default sentence

Section 302 IPC

Life Imprisonment

Rs.5,000/-

2 Months’ R.I.

2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:

4. The appellant happens to be the husband of the deceased Smt. Sajki. The incident took place on 18.08.2014 wherein, it is alleged that after hot verbal exchanges between the appellant herein and Sajki on the issue as to why, she had sent the children to do labour jobs, the appellant inflicted lathi blows to Smt. Sajki as a result whereof, she fell down. The first informant Mugla (brother of the deceased) accompanied with Narsa, Mansha and Vaja, reached the place of occurrence and on seeing them, the accused appellant ran away into the jungle. Sajki was lying outside the house with the mark of injuries near the left ribs, the abdominal area and on the right thigh. The first informant checked his sister for signs of life but realised that she had passed away. A written report with these allegations was submitted by Mugla (PW-5) at the Police Station Bekariya, District Udaipur on 18.08.2014 at 04.00 pm. whereupon, FIR No. 92/2014 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation was commenced.

5. The body of Smt. Sajki was subjected to autopsy by a panel of doctors at the Public Health Center, Malwa Ka Chhora, Udaipur who noted the following abrasions and bruises on the dead body:

    (i) abrasion measuring 4 X 2 cms. on left side of abdomen,

(ii) abrasion measuring 2 X 1 cms. on the right knee,

(iii) bruise measuring 5 X 2 cms. on the left side of abdomen,

(iv) bruise measuring 12 X 5 cms. over anterolateral aspect of right thigh lower 2/3rd,

(v) bruise measuring 10 X 5 cms. over anterolateral aspect of upper 1/3rd of left thigh.

On opening the dead body, the abdomen was found to be distended and 1½ liters clotted blood was found in peritoneal cavity. There was laceration measuring 2 X 2 cms. deep present over the hilum of spleen. A foetus of 4 months was present in the uterus. The cause of death was opined to be shock due to antemortem bodily injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. After usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the court concerned. As the offence was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur from where, it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Udaipur for trial. The trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents to prove its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, denied the same, claimed to have been falsely implicated but did not lead any defence evidence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence this appeal.

6. Shri J.V.S. Deora, learned counsel representing the appellant, did not question the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court against the appellant but advanced a solitary argument that the offence attributed to the appellant cannot travel to beyond Section 325 IPC. In this regard, he referred to the fact that in the FIR as well as in the evidence of the prosecution eye witnesses, it is clearly mentioned that

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top