IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kulwant Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 206 of 2008
Decided On : 07-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-Part II - Conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Appellant convicted and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine for causing death of Amar Singh - The court found that the accused slapped and pushed the deceased, leading to fatal injuries. (Paras 1, 6, 30)
(B) Delay in FIR - Delay in reporting the matter to police was not fatal to the prosecution's case as the family prioritized medical aid for the deceased. (Paras 12, 26)
(C) Standard of proof - The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were corroborated by medical evidence, and minor contradictions did not undermine their credibility. (Paras 6, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the death of Amar Singh, who was allegedly beaten by the accused after falling on the counter of a shop. The deceased succumbed to injuries sustained during the incident. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court's conviction under Section 304-Part II was modified to Section 323, with a reduced sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine. (Paras 32)
Issues: Whether the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 304-Part II or a lesser offense. (Paras 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence did not support a conviction under Section 304-Part II, as the injuries were not grievous enough to imply knowledge of likely death. (Paras 30)
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction modified to Section 323 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for five months. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. It was asserted that Ranjeet Kumar, Up Pardahan Kalhoa (PW-8), informed the police on 10.11.2005 that Amar Singh (since deceased) was beaten by Hardev Singh and Kulwant Singh. He was taken to Jalandhar Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The police recorded the entry in the daily diary (Ext. PW-12/A). SI Ranjeet Singh (PW-14) went to the spot for verification. He recorded the statement of Sunil Kumar (Ext.PW-3/A) and sent it to the Police, where F.I.R. (Ext. PW-11/A) was registered. Avinash Sharma (PW-10) took photographs of the spot (Ext.PW-10/A-1 and A-2), and the dead body (Ext.PW-10/A-3 to Ext.PW-10/A-5), whose negatives are Ext.PW-10/A-6 to A-10. SI Ranjit Singh (PW-14) inspected the dead body and prepared the inquest reports(Ext.PW2/B and Ext.PW-2/C). He filed an application (Ext.PW-2/A) for an autopsy of the dead body. Dr Suman Dhiman (PW-2) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased,and she issued her report (Ext.PW-2/D) stating that the injury sustained by the deceased could have been sustained by falling on a metalled road. The injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. Ranjit Singh (PW-14) prepared the spot map(Ext.PW-14/A). Babu Ram (PW-7) produced a blood-stained shirt(Ext.P-5) and pants(Ext.P-6) of the deceased. These were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-7/A). Ranjit Singh obtained the prescription slip (Ext.PW-14/B) and the treatment summaries(Ext.PW-15/A and Ext.PW-15/B). He filed an application (Ext.PW-2/E)to obtain the final opinion of Dr. Suman Dhiman. She issued the final report (Ext.PW-2/F). The case property was sent to SFSL Junga for analysis, and reports (Ext.PW-14/D and Ext.PW- 14/E) were issued stating that no poison/alcohol was found in the viscera, and human blood was found on the shirt and pants of the deceased. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehra, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Trial Court) for trial.
3. The Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case. Dr Jitender Sandhu (PW-1) initially examined victim Amar Singh. Dr Suman Dhiman (PW-2) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. Sunil Kumar (PW-3), Ajeet Singh (PW-4), Raj Kumar (PW-5) and Rajinder Kumar (PW-6) are the witnesses to the incident. Babu Ram (PW-7) accompanied the deceased to Jalandhar. Ranjit Kumar (PW-8) informed the police about the death. Kanta Devi (PW-9), wife of the deceased, was told about the incident. Avinash Sharma (PW-10) took the photographs.ASI Sansar Chand (PW-11) signed the F.I.R. Thakru Ram (PW-12) was working as MHC, with whom the case property was deposited. Pardeep Kumar (PW-13) carried the case property to SFSL Junga. Ranjit Singh (PW-14) conducted the investigation. Dr Sandeep Goel (PW-15) examined the deceased at Jalandhar.
5. The acc
AI
The court held that the accused's actions did not amount to culpable homicide under Section 304-Part II, modifying the conviction to a lesser offense under Section 323 IPC.
Appellate court should not interfere with reasonable acquittal view despite alternate possibility, factoring FIR delay, night identification doubts, intoxication-enabled fall injuries, strained relat....
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....
Appellate interference with acquittal justified only if perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; here upheld due to contradictions, delay, defence credibility.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimony, post-mortem evidence, and the lack of evidence to support the appellants' claims in affirming the con....
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; failure to prove clear connections in poisoning cases led to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove murder due to significant evidence discrepancies and delays in reporting, highlighting reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
An injured witness's testimony, which is significant in establishing guilt, can confirm the prosecution's case, and delays in lodging FIR can be validly explained without undermining the case.
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.