Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 1017
IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Munnuri Laxman, JJ.
Shantilal @ Shantiya S/o Shri Masra Bheel - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2023
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot, Adv. With Ms. Vandana, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr.R.R.Chhaparwal, PP
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a lack of premeditation and the occurrence of the act in a sudden quarrel can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Section 302, 304 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the act was committed in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, warranting a conviction under Section 304 instead of Section 302.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering the deceased by slitting his throat with a broken beer bottle. The incident occurred after a drinking session, and the prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, supported by eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, despite minor contradictions in witness statements.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt for murder under Section 302 IPC or if the circumstances warranted a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident, occurring in a sudden quarrel, justified a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Result: The conviction was modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, reducing the sentence to time already served.
JUDGMENT :
Munnuri Laxman, J.
1. This criminal appeal assails the judgment of conviction dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore on the file of Sessions Case No.35/2021 (C.I.S. No.51/ 2018), wherein and whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment of 15 days.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 Ghewaram, who is uncle of the deceased-Dileep (grand-son of his sister) lodged the complaint under Exhibit-P/1 on 15.02.2018. The report shows that he was told by his sister, PW-3 Champa Devi that she received a phone call from PW-19 Sanju informing that the deceased-Dileep was killed by Shanti Lal by slitting the throat by sharp edged object and fled away from the scene of the offence. On such information, they went to scene of the offence situated near the FCI godown and found the deceased succumbed to the slit injury on his neck. On the basis of such report, an FIR No.30/2018 (Exhibit-P/2) was registered against the accused-appellant/convict at Police Station Kotwali Jalore for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
3. The police after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The Investigation reveals that the deceased-Dileep and PW-19 Sanju left the house of PW-2 & 3 (Bhorki Devi & Smt. Champa Devi) at about 6:00 p.m. on motorcycle and while they were having paanipuri, they received a phone call from the accused-appellant/ convict. Both of them made conversation with the accused on mobile phone and thereafter, they picked up the accused, who borrowed two hundred rupees from PW-19 Sanju and purchased a beer bottle. All of them went behind the FCI godown where they consumed the beer. In the meanwhile, the accused told PW-19 Sanju that he had to talk something personal with the deceased so asked him to go away a little. PW-19 Sanju went behind the bushes and heard the noise of breaking of the bottle. He found the accused slitting the deceased with broken beer bottle and running away from the scene of the offence. He immediately informed PW-3-Smt. Champa Devi about the incident. PWs-1, 2 & 3 rushed to the scene of the offence. Thereafter, they lodged the report.
4. The accused was supplied with copies of charge-sheet and on the basis of the material available on record, he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses in support of its case and has relied upon 30 documents (Exhibits P/1 to P/30). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him. However, he did not produce any defence evidence.
6. The trial court on appreciation of evidence available on record, found that the prosecution established the case against the appellant/convict for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant to the terms indicated herein-above. Hence, the present appeal.
7. The evidence of PW-10, the doctor who conducted the postmortem and issued PM report (Exhibit-P/12), clearly establishes that the deceased sustained cut injuries on the throat & chin and the death was on account of slit injury on the neck. The above medical evidence clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal.
8. Now, the question before this Court is as to whether the prosecution could able to establish that the appellant was responsible for causing such slit injury to the deceased. The prosecution evidence is mainly based on PW-19 Sanju (eyewitness), the last seen evidence of PWs-4 & 9 (Raju & Kana Ram) and the incriminating evidence found on the clothes of the accuse
