Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Nalin Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Naresh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6351 of 2007
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the death caused by the accused was not premeditated, and the injury caused was not on the vital part of the body. The court concluded that the offence committed falls under Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The court also considered Section 299 IPC and held that the offence falls under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The court referred to various judgments and legal principles to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for stabbing a woman to death. The prosecution presented evidence including eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic evidence. The defence argued that the place of occurrence was doubtful, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's version, and there was no motive for the accused to commit the crime. The defence also presented witnesses and documentary evidence to support the appellant's innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused based on reliable evidence. The court analyzed the testimonies of both prosecution and defence witnesses, the medical evidence, and the forensic report. The court also considered the legal principles related to the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Based on this analysis, the court concluded that the offence committed fell under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, the establishment of the place of occurrence, the motive of the accused, and the adequacy of the investigation. The court also considered the applicability of legal provisions related to culpable homicide and murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles related to culpable homicide and murder to determine the nature of the offence committed by the accused. The court also considered the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, and the applicability of the reformative theory of punishment in sentencing the accused.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentencing the accused to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Moradabad in Session Trial No.127 of 2004 (State vs. Naresh Chandra) (case crime no. 211 of 2003) convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-with stipulation of default clause.
2. Brief facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Shyam Lal son of Daulat in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.'), are that on 9.10.2003 at about 9.30 a.m. while the informant alongwith his son Natthu and daughter-in-law Shakuntala was standing at Sirswan crossing in village Manpur in front of Stall (khokha) of Pandit Ji, Naresh, son of his brother Masih Charan, suddenly came from behind the Stall and catching the hair bun of Shakuntala, stabbed with knife many times on her body due to which she fell down on another side of the road. The son of the informant made noise but no one turned-up to save her. When the informant rushed towards the Chauki Manpur situated nearby, he saw one Inspector and two Sepoy coming there. Having seen the policemen, Naresh ran away at once towards the Vidhya Niketan School but the policemen caught him alongwith the knife. Recovery memo Ext. A-4 was prepared and, thereafter, informant took away injured Shakuntala to hospital where she was declared dead. The dead body of deceased was sent to Manpur Chauki and accused Naresh was also brought to the Police Station concerned.
3. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-1) scribed by one Rajveer Singh, chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-5) was registered at Police Station concerned on 9.10.2003 at 12.10 p.m. mentioning all the details as described in Ext. Ka-.1. G.D. entry was also made at the same time, which is Ext. Ka-6.
4. Investigation was entrusted to sub-Inspector Sanjiv Kumar (PW-7). He inspected the spot and prepared site plan -Ext. ka-7. He also prepared the inquest report of the deceased (Ext. ka-8) and papers relating to post mortem Ext. A-9 to Ext. A-14. The Investigating Officer also took the sample of plain earth and bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared the memo Ext. ka-15.
5. Autopsy report (Ext. ka-19) was prepared by Dr. Allauddin Saifi after performing the post mortem of the deceased on 10.10.2003 at 2.00 p.m. On examination of the dead body of the deceased, following antemortem injuries were found:
ii. A stabbed wound 3.5 x 2.5 cms. x muscle deep on anterior surface of left arm 4.0 cms below top of shoulder (Not exposed).
iii. Multiple abrasion in an area 20 x 6.0 cms. on posterior lateral surface of left arm with elbow
iv. An abrasion 6.0 x 4.0 cms. on left side of back of chest 8.0 cms. below left shoulder.”
6. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
7. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-16) against the appellant was filed. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance. The case being exclusively triable by sessions court, was committed to the Court of sessions.
8. Appellant appeared before the trial court and charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him. He denied the charge and claimed his trial.
9. Trial proceeded and in order to prove its case prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses, namely, PW-1 Shyam Lal (informant), PW-2 Natthu (eye witness), PW-3 Dr. Alauddin, PW-4 Sub-Inspector Anil Kumar Yadav (eye witness), PW-5 Constable Shyam Singh (eye witness), PW-6 H.C.P. Khem Singh (scribe of F.I.R.) and PW-7 Sub-Inspector Sanjiv Kumar, the Investigating Officer.
The following documents were exhibited :
10. Written report Ext. A-1, Recovery and arr
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to culpable homicide and murder, and the consideration of the reformative theory of punishment in sente....
The successful proof of the case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, despite the unproved recovery of murder weapons, and the appropriateness of the sent....
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The standards of proof in criminal law necessitate that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met due to lack of reliable evidence.
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
