Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Vijay Bishnoi, Madan Gopal Vyas, JJ.
Salim S/o Abdul Razak and ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 1992
Decided On : 20-01-2023
Conviction - Offences - Sections 302/34, 452/34 and 323/34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an assault on a family by neighbors resulting in the death of one family member. The appellants were convicted for various offences including Section 302/34 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had no intention to kill the deceased but had knowledge that their actions could likely cause death, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the intention of the appellants and the evidence supporting their involvement in the assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that the intention to cause death can be inferred from various circumstances, leading to the conviction under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was not sustained, and the appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part-I/34 IPC. The conviction for the other offences was confirmed, and the sentences were modified.
JUDGMENT :
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 02.09.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.25/90 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452/34 IPC and sentenced for three years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced for three months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 7 days’ simple imprisonment.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellant No.4 – Mst. Gheesi W/o Abdul Razak died and the appeal preferred on her behalf was abated vide order dated 22.11.2020.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Premsukh (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur on 06.06.1990 at about 1:30 pm stating therein that today at 1:00 pm, he along with his father-Moolchand and mother-Pushpa Devi were sitting in a room adjacent to a shop situated in their house, then, suddenly Salim, Mohammad Sadiq, Majeed sons of Abdul Razak, Gheesi W/o Abdul Razak and wives of Salim and Mohammad Sadiq and one another person armed with lathis and stones forcibly entered into their house with common intention and started assaulted him, his father and mother with lathis and stones. It is stated by Premsukh (PW-1) that wife of Abdul Razak inflicted a lathi blow on his head, on account of which, he fell down. It is further stated that the neighbours namely Champa Devi, Bhagwati, Meera and Ranidan rescued them. It is further stated by the complainant that all the accused persons have assaulted him, his mother and father on account of previous animosity.
4. On receiving the written report (Ex.P/1), the police registered an FIR. Injured-Moolchand was brought to hospital by the police, where he was admitted and during treatment, he died and the police after concluding the investigation, filed chargesheet against the appellants-Salim, Mohammad Sadiq, Majeed, Gheesi (now died), and Bano w/o Mohammad Sadiq and Haseena w/o Salim for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, however later on, it was transferred to the trial court. The trial court framed charges against the appellants and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as 23 prosecution witnesses and also got exhibited certain documents. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they claimed their innocence and produced one witness Mohammad Sabir (DW-1) in their defence.
6. The learned trial court after hearing counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the record of the case has passed the impugned judgment, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 452/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above, however, the appellants were acquitted for the offence under Section 147 IPC and the other accused persons namely Bano w/o Mohammad Sadiq and Haseena w/o Salim have been acquitted from all the charges.
7. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Mohammad Sadiq and Majeed has argued that the independent witnesses namely Bhagwati (PW/3), Champa Devi (PW/4), Meera (PW
The judgment establishes the principle that the intention to cause death can be inferred from various circumstances, leading to different convictions under the Indian Penal Code.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of common intention in a criminal assault case, considering the nature of injuries, weapons used, and the formation of common ....
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....
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
The absence of intent to kill led to the reclassification of charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing that sudden altercations without premeditated intent can lower the charge under IPC.
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
