Back
1986 Supreme(J&K) 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mazhar Ali Shah,S.M. Rizvi, JJ.
State - Appellant
Versus
Girdhari Lal - Respondent
Cr. Reference No. 21/1983
Decided On : 17 February, 1986
Advocate For Appellant: M.A. Goni
Advocate For Respondent: S.D. Sharma
The degree of punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is commensurate with the degree of culpability evidenced by the state of mind of the offender with which the act, by which the death is caused, is done.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12/1983 - [SECTION 302, 304 PART II, 342 CRPC] - Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Intention to Cause Bodily Injury Likely to Cause Death - Medical Evidence - Dying Declaration - Seizure of Blood Stained Clothes and Earth - Motive for Murder - Examination of Accused Under Section 342 CrPC - Appreciation of Evidence - Sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 RPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for assaulting the deceased with a darat, causing injuries that led to his death. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the findings of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused injuries to the deceased with a deadly weapon (darat) having knowledge of the fact that causing such injuries by such a weapon was likely to cause his death. The Court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part-II RPC and not under Section 302 RPC as held by the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the intention to cause the death of the deceased when he caused injuries to him? 2. Whether the appellant had the knowledge of causing such bodily injury which was likely to cause death? 3. Whether the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 302 RPC or Section 304, Part-II RPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant did not have the intention to cause the death of the deceased as the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the case indicated that he only intended to cause bodily injury. 2. The Court held that the appellant had the knowledge of causing such bodily injury which was likely to cause death as he used a deadly weapon (darat) to cause the injuries. 3. The Court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part-II RPC and not under Section 302 RPC as the prosecution had failed to prove the intention to cause death.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the reference made by the trial court for confirmation of the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 RPC. The Court sentenced the appellant to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 304, Part-II RPC.
1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu has made this Criminal [Reference No: 2 /1983] for confirming the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by him on the accused mentioned therein. The said convict has also filed an appeal [Criminal Appeal No: 12/1983 against the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 12th and 14th of September 1983 respectively, convicting him for the offence Under Section 302 R P C, and sentencing him to life imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 500/-. This order shall dispose of the reference, as also the appeal mentioned above, by a common judgment.
2. On 12-7-1982 one Koda Ram Chowkidar of village Chak Harni, Tehsil R. S Pora accompanied by Khazaa Chand Numberdar, and one Chaman Lal made a verbal report at police Stations. Bishnah stating therein, that about 8 P M. of the same day, one Mst. Giano Devi told them that Girdhari Lal accused has assaulted her son Mangat Ram (deceased) and injured him, They went on the spot., and found Mangat Ram had succumbed to the injuries. The deceased had received a deep wound caused by some sharp edged weapon on his left armpit, and had bled profusely. The thumb of the right hand was also found out. The accused was suspecting the deceased to have had illicit relations with his wife, on this report FIR No. 98 of 1982 for the offence Under Section 302 RFC came to be registered-After investigation of the case, accused was challenged in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R. S. Pora The learned Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Sessions, Jammu to Stand trial for the offence under Section 302 R P C. The case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged him for the offence Under Section 302 R P C, He pleaded not guilty to the charges, and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted him for the offence Under Section 302 R.P.C and sentenced hi to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 500/-
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the records.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has based his Judgment on the following grounds:-
1 Direct Evidence;
2 Dying declaration;
3 Disclosure statement of the accused and, the recovery of weapon of offence thereupon;
4 The Medical Evidence;
5 Seizure of blood stained earth and blood stained clothes of the deceased
6 Motive for murder.
5. According to him, the prosecution has beyond any reasonable doubt established the guilt of the accused after proving the above mentioned grounds, by Cogent and credible evidence. The appellant on the other hand, has, challenged the findings of the learned trial court in his memo of appeal on many grounds which will be thoroughly discussed in this judgment. We are called upon to determine as to whether the judgment and order of the learned trial court suffers from any legal and factual error, and whether it has rightly found the appellant guilty for the offence Under Section 302 RFC, and awarded a proper sentence to him ? In order to do all this, it will be just and proper to [scrutinize the findings of the learned trial court one by one. in the order he has adopted in the judgment. 1) So for as the direct evidence is concerned, the prosecution, has, in all, examined 12 witnesses which include eye-witnesses, witnesses of dying declaration, seizure of articles and medical evidence. We need not reproduce their statements, as they have been thoroughly discussed by the learned trial Court, We will only try to make an appreciation of the reasonings given by the trial Court, for believing their testimony, and find out if the same has been done correctly, and in accordance with law. According to prosecution, there were two eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence, and they are Darshan Lal and Sansar Chand. The PW Darsban Lall has fully corroborated the
