Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Urmila Devi alias Lata Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 352 of 2008
Decided On : 24-05-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans & Ms. Rameeta Kumari, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the conviction under Section 323 IPC based on the established evidence and the lack of substantiation of the appellant's defense.
Headnote:
Conviction - Assault - Section 323 IPC - [Section 323 IPC] - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 IPC based on the established evidence of the appellant's participation in the quarrel and the injuries inflicted on the victim. The court also considered the medical evidence and the lack of substantiation of the appellant's defense, leading to the affirmation of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Urmila Devi, was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC but convicted under Section 323 IPC for inflicting injuries resulting in the death of the victim during a quarrel. The incident took place in 2006, and the appellant had been undergoing the trauma of the conviction since 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 323 IPC based on the established evidence of the appellant's participation in the quarrel and the injuries inflicted on the victim. The court also considered the medical evidence and the lack of substantiation of the appellant's defense, leading to the affirmation of the conviction. The court modified the sentence, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the appellant's already undergone imprisonment and fine payment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's involvement in the quarrel, the infliction of injuries on the victim, and the substantiation of the appellant's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the established evidence of the appellant's participation in the quarrel, the injuries inflicted on the victim, and the lack of substantiation of the appellant's defense. The court also considered the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case in modifying the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence awarded to the appellant was modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone during the trial along with a fine of Rs.1,000, which the appellant had already deposited. Bail bonds were discharged, and the records of the Court below were to be immediately sent back.
Vivek Singh Thakur J.
This appeal has been preferred by appellant Urmila Devi against her conviction vide judgment dated 14.5.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No.14 of 2007, titled State of H.P. Vs. Urmila Devi in case FIR No. 182 of 2006, dated 14.10.2006, registered in Police Station Bhoranj, Tehsil Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., whereby appellant has been acquitted for charge under Section 302 IPC, but has been convicted under Section 323 IPC.
2. Against acquittal of appellant under Section 302 IPC, State has not preferred any appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State and also gone through the records.
4. Prosecution case in brief is that on 14.10.2006 at about 1:55 P.M. appellant Urmila Devi had inflicted injuries upon 62 years Vyasa Devi (now deceased), resulting into her death on the spot, during a quarrel taken place between them. Before death deceased Vyasa Devi had told PW-4 Premi Devi that appellant Urmila had broken her arm.
5. The incident was informed to the police telephonically by one Sh.Purshotam Singh, son of deceased, stating that his mother has been beaten by appellant Urmila Devi, resulting into her death. The said information was reduced into writing in DDR No. 11 dated 14.10.2006 in Police Station Bhoranj and thereafter police party headed by PW-17 SI Amar Singh rushed to the spot, where statement of PW-3 Sunita Devi, Ex. PW-3/A, was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and was sent to the Police Station as a rucka, resulting into registration of FIR Ex. PW-14/B. Thereafter investigation was carried out. During investigation PW-6 Kiran Kumari and PW-10 Anita Devi were medically examined by PW-2 Dr. Lalit Kalia, who issued their MLCs Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C. Appellant Urmila Devi was also medically examined by Dr. Sanjay Ranot, who had issued MLC Ex. DA in this regard. Post mortem of the body of deceased Vyasa Devi was conducted by PW-1 Dr. C.R. Verma, who had opined that Vyasa Devi had expired due to cardiac arrest on account of impact of injury No. 4. Injury No. 4 was contusion 6X4 CM on abdomen in the epigastric region. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and the case was committed to Sessions Court, where appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC.
6. As per FIR the quarrel started on the date of incident at 12:30 P.M. when appellant Urmila Devi starting abusing PW-3 Sunita Devi and her sister-in-law (Devrani) Tripta, who were whitewashing their new house. Appellant Urmila was asked to desist from abusing, whereupon appellant Urmila started pelting stones from her courtyard targeting them, thereupon both of them went inside the house and on hearing their cries their mother-in-law Vyasa Devi (deceased) came out of old house and reached in the gali (narrow passage between the houses) of new house and asked appellant for the reasons to abuse her daughter-in-laws, but Urmila had pelted stones upon her and also beat her with bamboo stick, causing injuries to her. In the meanwhile, PW-10 Anita came on the spot and tried to save deceased Vyasa Devi, but she also received injuries on her right side of eye and nose. After hearing noise, PW-11 Parkash Chand husband of deceased Vyasa Devi also came on the spot. Thereafter PW-3 Sunita, PW-10 Antia and PW-11 Parkash Chand picked up injured Vyasa, who had fallen on the ground due to beatings, and brought her to courtyard and lie her on the cot. In the meanwhile, PW-4 Premi Devi also reached on the spot and advised to massage the injured Vyasa Devi, whereupon Urmila Devi came there and said that Vyasa Devi will regain consciousness only on shoe slapping. In the meanwhile Vyasa Devi had expired.
7. Prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to prove its case. PW-3 Sunita, PW-4 Premi Devi, PW-6 Kiran Kumari, PW-10 Anita and PW-11 Parkash Chand have been examined as spot witnesses, who had witnessed either the whole incident or part there
