SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 922

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : From Jail, Amit Kumar Srivastava.
For the Respondent: A.G.A.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 324, and 307 - Appeal against conviction for murder and attempted murder - The appellant received rigorous imprisonment sentences, including life imprisonment for murder and terms for other offenses - The incident occurred when the accused attacked his mother with an axe following a domestic dispute, resulting in fatal injuries after hospitalization - The trial court's conviction was challenged due to alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the argument of unsoundness of mind. (Paras 2, 11, 54, and 58)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 328 - Plea regarding unsoundness of mind raised during trial - No medical evidence presented to support the claim, and the defendant's mental health was not established at the time of the incident - The failure to raise the defense earlier in the proceedings barred its consideration on appeal. (Paras 24-26)

(C) Judicial Reasoning - The court evaluated evidence, including eyewitness accounts and medical reports, concluding that the appellant's intent did not rise to the level of murder, thus modifying the verdict to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of established intention or premeditation. (Paras 49-56)

Facts of the case:
The appellant attacked his mother with an axe after a domestic dispute, resulting in her injury and eventual death after medical treatment for subsequent complications. Testimonies established the events surrounding the incident and the prosecution's case was supported by forensic evidence of injuries. (Paras 3-10)

Findings of Court:
The court found the appellant guilty under Section 304, Part I IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, acknowledging the lack of intent to kill despite the use of a lethal weapon in the assault. Sentences for lesser charges were maintained. (Paras 58-60)

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence supported a conviction for murder or a lesser charge and if the defense of unsoundness of mind could be legally claimed. (Paras 11, 38)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of established murderous intent justified a conviction for culpable homicide, separating it from the strict interpretation of murder charges. Evidence of the absence of any premeditated motive or prior violent behavior was critical in the decision-making process. (Paras 50-51, 56)

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I IPC, with corresponding sentences adjusted accordingly. (Paras 58, 59)

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-

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top