IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, JJ.
Dhama Ram, S/o. Moti Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1988 Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1988
Decided On : 27-05-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND ASSAULT - SECTION 302, 304, 323, 324, 143, 149 IPC - The court discussed the applicability of Sections 302 and 304 of the IPC, emphasizing the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court interpreted the lack of intention to kill and the absence of premeditation in the actions of the accused, leading to a reduction of the conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304. The court also considered the age and lack of criminal antecedents of the accused in its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a violent incident from 1986 where the accused attacked Hari Ram, resulting in his death. The accused were charged with murder under Section 302 IPC and other related offenses. The trial court convicted them, leading to appeals against the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions in witness statements and the medical report but upheld the presence of multiple eyewitnesses. It concluded that the accused did not possess the intention to kill, leading to a reclassification of the charges from murder to culpable homicide.
Issues: The main issues included whether the accused had the intention to kill, the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, and the appropriateness of the charges under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case, especially when supported by multiple eyewitnesses. It also clarified that the absence of intent to kill and premeditation is crucial in determining the appropriate charge under the IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, reducing the conviction of Dhama Ram and Khajan Ram from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC, and modified the sentences accordingly. The convictions of Taru Ram and Luna Ram were maintained, but their sentences were reduced to the time already served.
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. These criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs :
2. The matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year 1986 and the present appeals have been pending since the year 1988.
3. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, Camp Suratgarh, in Sessions Case 30/86 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Dhamaram & Ors.), whereby the accused-appellants Dhama Ram and Khajan Ram have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine with default clause. Accused-appellants Taru Ram and Luna Ram have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323/149 & 324/149 IPC and sentenced for different period of imprisonments, ranging to maximum one year’s rigorous imprisonment.
3.1. Other accused Kartar and Jag Ram, though were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 323/149 & 324/149 IPC, were released, while extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
3.2. Accused-appellant Makhan Ram s/o Moti Ram had expired on 07.11.2005 and accused-appellants Jaisa Ram, Uttama Ram and Makhan Ram had also expired, and therefore, the appeals qua them stood dismissed as abated.
4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Shubham Ojha, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Bhagat Dhadhich, learned counsel for the appellants, are that on 21.03.1986, in the morning, complainant Chetan Ram (PW-1) submitted an oral information before the concerned police station, to the effect that on the previous day i.e. 20.03.1986, after sunset, while the sons of Hari Ram (brother of the informant) were returning back home, on the way back, one Ram and Khajan indulged into a fight.
4.1. As per the informant, he was told by Ram that when he picked up some of Grams (Chana) from the crop of Ramchandra, he (Ram) was abused by Khajan. Thereupon, Hari Ram went to Makhan Ram and complained to him about the same, whereupon, Makhan Ram threatened of killing Hari Ram. Thereafter, at about 7:00 p.m., Khajan, Dhamaram and Makhanram, armed with gandasi, Kasiya and lathi, came to Hari Ram and starting beating him in front of his own house. Dhamaram inflicted gandasi blow on the head of Hari Ram, as a result whereof, Hari Ram fell down; other accused persons also inflicted blows on Hari Ram. Thereupon, the informant himself, his wife-Sarbati, Het Ram, Pappu and Banwari (sons of Hari Ram) and Om Prakash (son of informant) rushed to the place of incident. On this, Lunia, Taru, Kartar, Utmaram, Jaisaram, Makhanram and Jagram, armed with lathis also reached there.
4.2. The informant further stated that he and his family alongwith others, tried to rescue Hari Ram, however, they were also beaten by the accused persons, in the course whereof, the informant and others also sustained injuries. The informant and others, while telling the accused persons that Hari Ram is dead, pleaded to leave him, whereupon the accused persons left the place of the incident. As per the informant, Hari Ram was in an unconscious state and his condition became critical, whereupon he was admitted in a hospital on 21.03.1986 itself. As per the informant, the said incident was a result of enmity between Hari Ram and the accused persons, which prompted them to make efforts to kill Hari Ram.
5. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR bearing No.29/86 (Ex.D-2) dated 21.03.1986 was registered at Police Station, Pilibanga, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 & 323 IPC, and the investigation accordingly commenced thereafter. However, on the same date i.e. 21.
Dilip Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab
The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent and direct involvement in the act leading to death, and that joint liability under Section....
The judgment emphasizes the need for comprehensive appreciation of evidence and the limited scope for interference in acquittal judgments.
In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the specific involvement and intent of the accused in the commission of the crime; mere presence or association is insuffic....
The principle of parity in criminal law mandates that co-accused with similar evidence should receive consistent verdicts, preventing arbitrary distinctions in convictions.
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
The court established that the nature of injuries and intent are crucial in determining the appropriate charge under IPC, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence linking actions to the cause of....
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....
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.