Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Nalin Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 922 of 2013
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Conviction - Murder - Section 302 I.P.C - [Culpable Homicide - Section 299, Section 300] - The court found the evidence adduced by the prosecution to be cogent, consistent, and reliable, proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. The court, upon reappraisal of the facts and circumstances, converted the conviction to Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC, considering the sudden provocation and deprivation of self-control by the accused. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 10 years of incarceration with a reduced fine of Rs.10,000 and a default sentence of three months.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Anil Kumar, was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C for causing the death of his wife, Archana, following a quarrel at the accused's shop. The prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and recovery of the murder weapon, proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence adduced by the prosecution to be cogent, consistent, and reliable, proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Upon reappraisal of the facts and circumstances, the court converted the conviction to Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC, considering the sudden provocation and deprivation of self-control by the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, the genuineness of the FIR, and the nature of the offence committed by the accused, whether it constituted murder under Section 302 I.P.C or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 and Section 300 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and recovery of the murder weapon to establish the guilt of the accused. It also considered the sudden provocation and deprivation of self-control by the accused, leading to the conversion of the conviction to Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, converting the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 10 years of incarceration with a reduced fine of Rs.10,000 and a default sentence of three months.
JUDGMENT :
Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bijnor passed judgment and order of conviction dated 12.02.2013 against the accused/appellant Anil Kumar in Sessions Trial no. 837 of 2010 (State Vs. Anil Kumar) under Section 302 I.P.C (arising out of case crime no.290/2010), P.S.-Mandawar, District-Bijnor and sentenced to him to undergo life imprisonment and further imposed fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default six months additional simple imprisonment, hence this appeal.
2. As per the case of prosecution deceased Archana, daughter of informant Jai Prakash, who had a betel shop, was married with accused-Anil Kumar about 15 years before the occurrence. Accused used to make a demand of Rs.5 lac for his business. On 18.8.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. when Archana went to the shop of accused to take a gas cylinder, a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and accused inflicted injury upon the deceased with Patal (a sharp edged weapon). Meanwhile Jai Prakash-informant, Jaiwati wife of informant and his son Govind Kumar came on the spot and the accused fled away with the murder weapon. A written report Ex.A-17 regarding the occurrence was given to the police station by the informant Jai Prakash on 18.08.2010 at 18.10 p.m. on the basis of which chick FIR Ex.A-8 was registered and G.D. Ex.A-9 was prepared and investigation of the case started. Smt. Archana died of the injuries during treatment. The I.O. recorded the statements of eye-witnesses, informant and other witnesses. The inquest report Ex.A-2 and the papers required for post mortem Ex. A-3 to A-7 were prepared by S.I. Ram Kishun Manik. During investigation the accused was arrested with the murder weapon, which was blood stained, by the I.O. The victim of the occurrence was examined by doctor Anuj Kumar at District-Ghaziabad on 18.08.2010, who prepared the injury report Ex.A-10 and found following injuries on the body of the deceased:
2. I.W. 7.0 x 3.0 cm. on joint of left shoulder. Bleeding present.
3. Left hand is chopped up from wrist joint, hand is not present. Bone and muscle are exposed at wrist joint. Bleeding Present.
4. I.W. 12.0 x 7.0 cm muscle deep over right breast joint above nipple. fat of breast is exposed.
5. I.W. 10.0 x 3.5 cm. over right abdomen 5.0 cm from umblicus 10 o’clock position. Bleeding present
6. I.W. 6.0 x 1.5 cm. on upper aspect of right upper arm.
7. I.W. 3.0 x 1.5 cm over back of right fore arm. 5.0 cm above wrist joint.
8. I.W. 10.0 x 6.0 x bone deep fist cut right knee joint over bone is also cut.
3. During examination the injured died on 18.10.2010 at 6.50 p.m. The doctor opined that injury no.3 and 4 were grievous in nature and rest of the injuries were simple injuries. The injuries were fresh and caused by sharp edged object.
4. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by doctor Bhoj Raj Singh on 19.8.2010 at 2.00 p.m. who prepared autopsy report Ex.A-1 and found following anti mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:
2. I.W. over left side of root of neck, going back of neck and upto root of neck on right side, 5.0 cms below ears on both sides, measuring 32.0 x 3.0 cms bone deep.
3. I.W. over top of left shoulder, 5.0 x 2.0 cms, muscle deep.
4. I.W. over back of neck on right side, 4.0 x 2.0 cms ears, bone deep , 2.0 cms above injury N.O. 2.
5. I.W. over top of right shoulder , muscle deep, 4.0 x3.0 cms.
6. I.W. over right breast, 15.0 x 9.0 cms, bone deep with skin and muscles absent.
7. I.W. over outer aspect of right arm, 5.0 x 2.0 cms, muscle deep, 13.0 cms above elbow join
Intention in culpable homicide is inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the location of injuries, and conduct indicating a purposeful act to achieve a harmful outcome.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of intention and knowledge in determining the offence under Section 307 IPC, the principles of vicarious liability under Section 34 ....
The Court upheld the life imprisonment conviction under Section 302 IPC, affirming the case as murder due to the absence of sudden provocation and corroborative evidence supporting the eyewitness's t....
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
