Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Hansraj Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2278 of 2015
Decided On : 23-02-2021
Homicide - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 307 - Section 304 - Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act - Section 27 of the Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for life imprisonment for the murder of his wife and for injuring another person. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, reducing the sentence to seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000. The court emphasized the lack of premeditation and the hit of the moment nature of the incident.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of witness testimonies, the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness testimonies and medical evidence to establish the nature of the incident as a hit of the moment, leading to the application of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, with a reduced sentence and fine.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This appeal, arises out of judgment and order dated 13.04.2015 passed by court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaushambi, in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 2008, (State Vs. Hansraj Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2008, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi, whereby the accused has been convicted for life imprisonment for commission of offence under section 302 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.10,000/- and for seven years for commission of offence under section 307 I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and further period of 6 months additional imprisonment in default payment of fine.
3. The F.I.R. shows that deceased who was the wife of the appellant was in the matrimonial home; when her dead body was found and the accused Hansraj was found running from his house at night and on his way he injured Shiv Singh with the intention to cause his death. The F.I.R. was lodged on 15.5.2008. The informant of the incident is one Shiv Karan Singh who heard the sound of shouting and when he looked at Hansraj's house he saw his cousins Vinod Singh and Yogendra Singh and other people running towards Hansraj’s house. The accused was seen running out from his house with a dagger in his hand and her wife Rannodevi was found lying dead on the floor. On his way running through the field Hansraj also assaulted at his uncle Shiv Singh. The accused Hansraj had distrust on the character of his wife with one Vinod Singh who happens to be his cousin brother and for this reason the accused Hansraj committed the alleged offence. After occurrence of the said incident the police started investigation and led the charge-sheet.
4. The trial was to be conducted by the court of Sessions as it was Sessions triable case, hence the case was committed to the court of sessions.
5. The accused was charged on 29.07.2009 and alternative charge was framed on 02.12.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined the following witnesses :-
| 1. | Shiv Karan Singh | P.W.1 |
| 2. | Shiv Singh | P.W.2 |
| 3. | Yogendra Singh | P.W.3 |
| 4. | Gulab Singh | P.W.4 |
| 5. | Vinod Singh | P.W.5 |
| 6. | Dr. S.M. Ahmad | P.W.6 |
| 7. | Imamuddin | P.W.7 |
| 8. | Ranjana Sachan | P.W.8 |
| 9. | Dr. Ashutosh Pandey | P.W.9 |
| 10. | Lavkush Singh | P.W.10 |
| 11. | Surendra Bahadur Singh | P.W.11 |
| 12. | Dr. Vibha Kumari | P.W.12 |
6. In order to substantiate the oral testimony of the witnesses and their medical evidence, documentary evidence were also produced which are as follows :-
| 1. | Written report | Ext. Ka-1 |
| 2. | F.I.R. | Ext. Ka-2 |
| 3. | P.M. Report | Ext. Ka-3 |
| 4. | Site Plan with Index of deceased | Ext. Ka-4 |
| 5. | Site Plan with Index of 2nd incidence | Ext. Ka-5 |
| 6. | Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth | Ext. Ka-6 |
| 7. | Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth | Ext. Ka-7 |
| 8. | Recovery memo of pieces of quilt | Ext. Ka-8 |
| 9. | Recovery memo of pieces of ‘Kathari’ and cover of pillow | Ext. Ka-9 |
| 10. | Recovery memo of shirt and arrest of accused | Ext. Ka-10 |
| 11. | X-Ray report | Ext. Ka-11 |
| 12. | Charge-sheet mool | Ext. Ka-12 |
| 13. | Paper no.13x@12 | Ext. Ka-13 |
| 14. | Panchayatnama | Ext. Ka-14 |
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he has been convicted because of the inculpatory statement made by him and because the knife alleged to be instrument of offence was recovered at his behest. It is submitted that the learned judge has materially added in relying on the judgment of Sharad Birdi Chandra Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 SCC (Crl) 487 and on Padala Veerareddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 79 in convicting the accused for commission of offenc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
