Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, Madan Gopal Vyas, JJ.
Nanak Ram S/o Bhagu Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 11/2018
Decided On : 10-01-2023
Culpable Homicide - Section 302 IPC - Section 27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, and the application of Section 300 and Section 304 of the IPC. It concluded that the case fell under the exception contained in Section 300 IPC and was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, leading to the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and a reduced sentence of eight years.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for firing a gunshot on the chest of the deceased, resulting in his death. The appellant claimed that the gunshot was fired accidentally and he had no intention to kill the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case fell under the exception contained in Section 300 IPC and was a simpliciter case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, leading to the conversion of the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and a reduced sentence of eight years.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased or not, and whether the case fell under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 Part II IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court discussed the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, and the application of Section 300 and Section 304 of the IPC. It relied on the statements of the witnesses and the circumstances of the case to determine the intention of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was converted into the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. The sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to eight years, with a fine of Rs.2,000 imposed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Vijay Bishnoi, J. - The present criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (for short ’the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.11/2016 (C.I.S. No.14/2016), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
2. Brief facts of the case are that P.W.-3 Najar Singh lodged a written report (Exhibit/P-5) before the SHO, Police Station, Gajsinghpur, District Sriganganagar stating therein that he is resident of Srikaranpur and having four daughters and one son namely Jagsir Singh aged about 26 years. He also stated in the written report that accused Nanak Ram is his neighbour and on 24.03.2016, at about 02:30 PM, he was at his house and his wife, son Jagsir Singh and daughter-in-law were celebrating Holi in their house; the house of neighbour Nanak Ram is seen from his house because the height of wall situated in between their houses is short; at that time, accused Nanak Ram was in drunken state and was hurling abuses, upon which, his son Jagsir Singh went to the house of Nanak Ram along with one Balvinder Singh son of Sampurn Singh and asked him not to hurl abuses, then suddenly, Nanak Ram got annoyed and brought a gun from a room of his house and fired a gunshot on the chest of his son Jagsir Singh. It is further stated in the written report that he and his family members witnessed the said incident while standing in their house. At that time, son-in-law of Nanak Singh’s brother was also present in the house and his son Jagsir Singh was taken to a government hospital at Srikaranpur in 108 ambulance where he died on account of gunshot injury caused by convict - Nanak Ram.
3. On receiving this report, the Police registered FIR No.39/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station, Gajsinghpur and started investigation. After investigation, the Police filed chargesheet against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the matter was committed to the trial court.
4. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant has denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case against the appellant, the prosecution has produced as many as 16 prosecution witnesses and also got exhibited around 41 documents. The statement of the convict appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein the appellant had stated that he had no intention to kill the deceased and the gun-shot was fired accidentally.
6. The trial court after hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and after scrutinizing the evidence available on record has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, however, acquitted him from the charges for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court has sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. HSS Kharlia assisted by Ms. Kinjal Purohit, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not questioned the correctness of the findings of the trial court holding the appellant guilty of the said criminal offence, however, the only contention raised before us is that even as per the prosecution case, the only offence for which the appellant can be convicted and sentenced would be under Part II of Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel has argued that from the evidence available on record, it can be gathered that though, the appellant had knowledge that his act of firing gunshot is likely to cause death, but he had no intention to kill the
The court modified the conviction of Subhash from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for evidence of common intention in joint criminal acts.
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The absence of intent to kill and the nature of injuries led to a modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II.
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They conno....
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I due to lack of intent and premeditation.
The absence of intent to kill led to the reclassification of charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving the accused's intention to cause death or inflict bodily injury likely to cause death in determining whether an offense constitutes culpable homicid....
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
