IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Ramesh Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 358 of 2018
Decided On : 22-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of appeal against lower court's judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of fir and evidence collection process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. prosecution's witness testimonies and documentary evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. grounds of appeal by the accused. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's analysis of eyewitness credibility. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. medical examination and post mortem findings. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 7. discussion on section 84 ipc and insanity. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. legal definition and interpretations of unsoundness. (Para 18 , 21) |
| 9. court's perspective on evidence for unsound mind. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. insanity defense requirements not met. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 11. considering charges under section 307 ipc. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 12. injuries investigation and implications for conviction. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 13. murder versus culpable homicide distinctions. (Para 34 , 37) |
| 14. factors determining culpable homicide definition. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 15. legal precedent on culpable homicide examined. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 16. proving intent and medical treatment relevance. (Para 43 , 44) |
| 17. summarized legal principles on culpable homicide interpretations. (Para 46 , 48) |
| 18. final ruling on conviction adjusted to culpable homicide. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the convicted accused Ramesh Yadav against the judgment and order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Bhadohi, Gyanpur.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court awarded following sentences to the accused:-
(I) Under Section 302 IPC rigorous imprisonment of life sentence and a fine of Rs.10,000/-;
(II) Under Section 324 IPC rigorous imprisonment of three years;
(III) Under Section 307 IPC rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
3. In brief, facts of the case are that on 16.02.2016 informant Banarsi son of Ram Nath resident of Mavaiya, PS Gyanpur, District Bhadohi moved a written tahrir (Ex.Ka-1) that his son Ramesh Yadav today at about 12 O'clock had badly injured his wife Sukhraji Devi from a sharp edged weapon. He has admitted his wife for treatment in Gyanpur Government Hospital.
4. On the basis of written tahrir (Ex.Ka-1) a chick FIR (Ex.Ka-19) in Case Crime No.24 of 2016 under Section 324 IPC was registered and entered in GD (Ex.Ka-18). After death of injured Sukhraji Section 302 IPC was added through paper Ex.Ka-8.
5. PW-6, SSI Ram Adhar Yadav, Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared map (Ex.Ka-6) recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses and after finding sufficient evidence submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-14) under Sections 324 , 307, 302 IPC against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 12.05.2016 and was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Bhadohi who framed the charges on 26.05.2016 from which the accused denied and requested for trial.
6. The witnesses who have been examined from the side of the prosecution are: (i) PW-1, Banarsi, informant; (ii) PW-2, Meena Devi, an independent witness; (iii) PW-3, Bindu Devi, sister of the accused; (iv) PW-4, Om Prakash, an independent witness; (v) PW-5, Dr. Girish Chand Rawat who examined the deceased before her death and also PW-3, Bindu Devi (injured); (vi) PW-6, Ram Adhar Yadav, Investigating Officer; (vii) PW-7, Raghvendra Singh, the then SO of PS Gyanpur; (viii) PW-8, Amar Bahadur Singh, autopsy doctor; and (ix) PW-9, Jitendra Kumar, Constable.
7. The documentary evidences which have been produced from the prosecution side are: (i) Ex.Ka-1, tahrir of the informant; (ii) Ex.Ka-2, inquest; (iii) Ex.Ka-3, recovery memo; (iv) Ex.Ka-4 and 5 both photocopy of injury report; (v) Ex.Ka-6, map; (vi) Ex.Ka-7 and 8, certified copies of GD; (vii) Ex.Ka-9, police Form-13; (viii) Ex.Ka-10, photonash; (ix) Ex.Ka-11, letter to CMO; (x) Ex.Ka-12, letter to RI; (xi) Ex.Ka-13, photonash; (xii) Ex.Ka-14, charge-sheet; (xiii) Ex.Ka-15, arrest memo; (xiv) Ex.Ka-
Krishnan and another Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police
Amrit Bhushan Gupta Vs. Union of India
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat
Tolaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Prabhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarpu Punnayya
Purna Padhi Vs. State of Orissa
The court held that the accused lacked intent to kill, resulting in conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC instead of murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention or knowledge regarding the fatal injury, with the absence of premeditation and the nature of the confrontation i....
Intent to kill was established through infliction of dagger wounds; original conviction for culpable homicide was incorrect as the act constituted murder as per IPC definitions.
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.