Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Siri Harijan and Another - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 1987
Decided On : 31-08-2022
For the Appellant : S.N. Srivastava, Anirudh Pratap Singh Rathor, Jigyasa Singh, Rajeshwari Singh.
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Conviction of two sons for murder of their father altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 - The deceased was assaulted with Lathis by his sons over a dispute regarding shares in agricultural land, leading to severe injuries and subsequent death - The Court emphasized that while the injuries were serious, the intent to kill could not be established. (Paras 16, 22, 36)
(B) Culpable Homicide and Murder - Distinction between Sections 299, 300 and 304 IPC - The intention to cause death or serious harm must be present to constitute murder. The Court noted that intention to inflict injury was present, but not intention to kill. (Paras 22-25, 36)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, sons of the deceased, assaulted their father Dhorha Harijan over property disputes, resulting in his death hours after the attack, while being taken to the police station and hospital for treatment. The incident occurred after a prior altercation about inheritance. (Paras 3-11, 30)
Findings of Court:
The surviving appellant was found guilty of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I, with a sentence of ten years, citing lack of intent to kill despite serious injuries inflicted. (Paras 40-42)
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the assault, distinction between murder and culpable homicide, and the assessment of intention behind the act of the appellants. (Paras 22-23, 36)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that motive and the nature of injuries did not establish the necessary intent for murder; rather, the act constituted culpable homicide. The distinction clarified that an intent to inflict harm was present, not an intent to kill. (Paras 25-36)
Result: The appeal was partially accepted, convicting the surviving appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC. (Paras 41-42)
JUDGMENT :
Sunita Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Ms. Jigyasa Singh and Ms. Rajeshwari Singh learned Advocates for the appellants and Sri Rupak Chaubey learned AGA for the State-respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1986 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1986 (State vs. Siri Harijan and Sripat Harijan) whereby appellants Siri Harijan and Sripat Harijan have been held to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 34 IPC and have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case starts with the first information report lodged on a report scribed by Head Moharrir Sri Shyam Narain Yadav on the statement of deceased Dhorha Harijan. The said report which was lodged on 7.1.1986 at about 10:10 AM for the incident which occurred on the said date at about 7:00 AM, was a Non-cognizable report registered as NCR No. 3/86 under Sections 323 /504 IPC. The report was scribed on the statement of the injured Dhorha (later deceased) stating that the assailants/accused were his own sons who were living separately from him. The deceased was residing with his brother Pati Ram at the time of the incident, the accused assaulted him with Lathis while saying that if their shares were not given, they would kill him. On hue and cry raised by the informant (injured himself), many people came to save him.
4. The written report scribed by the Head Moharrir is signed by him and had been proved in his deposition as PW-4. The scribe of the report namely Head Moharrir as PW-4 stated that he was posted as Head Moharrir on 7.1.1986 in the police station Mardah/concerned. At about 10:10 AM, the report was lodged on the oral information given by the injured Dhorha Harijan son of Jiut Harijan, who had later died. It was stated by PW-4 that whatever was told to him was scribed and the injured was conscious and was speaking clearly. PW-4 further stated that the said report was registered as NCR No. 3 in his handwriting and signature and the copy of Check FIR was in his handwriting and signature proved as Exhibit Ka-4. He further stated that whatever was written in the report was transcribed as Check FIR and it was read over to the informant who put his thumb impression thereafter. He stated that the thumb impression of the deceased was existing on the FIR and the copy thereof had been proved by him. The case was entered in GD at Rapat No. 11 at about 10:10 AM on the said date. The original GD was brought in the Court and the copy thereof was filed on record proved as Exhibit Ka-5 being in handwriting and signature of Constable Moharrir Ramlala Yadav. It was stated by PW-4 that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were entered in the GD. After making entries, the injured was sent for medical examination to the Government Hospital, Mardah. On 7.1.1986 at about 16:10 hours, a memo was received from the doctor about the death of the injured which was entered in GD at Rapat No. 25 at about 16:10 hours in his handwriting and signature. The original GD was brought in the Court and the copy thereof was filed and proved as Exhibit Ka-6.
PW-4 stated that on the basis of information of the death, the case was converted into an offence under Section 304 IPC from Section 323 IPC and the entry in this regard could be found in the GD. The original FIR which was dictated by deceased Dhorha was proved as Exhibit Ka-7 being in the handwriting and signature of PW-4. PW-4 was further confronted as to how the injured could reach at the police station. He stated that the injured Dhorha came alongwith Pati Ram, his brother on his own and the S.O. of the police station was present at that time. He was confronted about the entries in the GD and the inspection of GD by the Circle Officer. He was further confronted about the contents of the written report and PW-4 asserted that whatever was dictated by Dhorha (deceased) was written by him. Con
