IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Manish Kori – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2164 of 2012, Criminal Appeal No.1356 of 2012
Decided on : 30-09-2022
IPC - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC - Section 299, Section 300, and Section 304 Part I of IPC discussed
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for causing the death of the deceased by beating him with iron rods. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death was a case of homicidal death not amounting to murder and concluded that the offence was punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. The court also considered the reformative theory of punishment and reduced the sentence for the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the offence committed by the accused fell under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Section 299, Section 300, and Section 304 Part I of IPC to determine the nature of the offence and considered the reformative theory of punishment in sentencing the accused.
Final Decision: The accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a reduced fine.
JUDGMENT :
K.J. Thaker, J.
1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 25.2.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Jalaun, in Sessions Trial No.280 of 2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants, Babloo Kori alias Santosh Kumar and Manish Kori for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/-and in case of default in payment of fine, further to undergo one year simple imprisonment.
2. The matter was kept for pronouncement of judgment on 14.9.2022, but due to paucity of time, the judgment could not be pronounced on the said date.
3. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 19.10.2009, F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 1657 of 2009 came to be lodged with Police Station Kotwali, Orai District Jalaun on the basis of the complaint made by one Amar Singh Chauhan, the father of the deceased stating that on the same day at about 7.30 p.m., accused-appellant, Babloo Kori had called out his son-Sardar Singh, alias Lalla Singh (deceased) from his house and near the house of Brij Mohan where accused-appellant-Manish Kori and two unknown persons were already present. Two persons were holding the hand of his son and Babloo Kori was beating his son with iron rod in his hand. It was also alleged in the complaint that accused-appellant Manish Kori was also beating the deceased on his head and hand by iron rod in his hand. Persons who were holding the hand of the deceased were shouting "Don't let him escape, kill him". It was also alleged by the informant that the Kapil Singh, son of the deceased, had seen the accused-appellant Babloo Kori calling his father out and Veer Singh, brother of the deceased, had seen the deceased being beaten by accused-appellants, Babloo Kori and Manish Kori and other two unknown persons. On hearing the shouting of the informant and Veer Singh, the accused-persons had fled away. Beer Singh, brother of the deceased, got Sardar Singh alias Lalla Singh admitted in the hospital where he died during treatment.
5. Initially the First Information Report was registered under Section 304 of IPC but after investigation and recording of statements of all the witnesses charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigation Officer to the learned Magistrate under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellants and two other accused-persons.
6. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offences alleged to have been committed were triable by the Sessions Court.
7. On being summoned, the accused-persons pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.
8. On 5.11.2009, the charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC by learned Sessions Judge.
9. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 11 witnesses who are as follows:
| 1 | Amar Singh Chauhan | PW1 |
| 2 | Veer Singh | PW2 |
| 3 | Dr. Shrikant Tiwari | PW3 |
| 4 | Hansharam | PW4 |
| 5 | Arun Prakash Singh | PW5 |
| 6 | Subhash Chandra | PW6 |
| 7 | Anil Kumar Verma | PW7 |
10. In support of ocular version following documents were filed and proved:
| 1 | F.I.R. & G.D. | Ex.Ka.11 & Ex. Ka.21 |
| 2 | Written Report | Ex.Ka.1 |
| 3 | Recovery memos | Ex. Ka.14, Ka.15, Ka.16 & Ka.18 |
| 4 | Postmortem Report | Ex.Ka.2 |
| 5 | Panchayatnama | Ex.Ka.8 |
| 6 | Charge-sheet | Ex. Ka.20 |
| 7 | Site Plan | Ex.Ka.13 & 17 |
11. Apart from the above, Sheelbhadra Gautam and Kanhaiya Lal were examined as Court witness. At the end of the trial and after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accuse
Mer Dhana Sida versus State of Gujarat
Pravat Chandra Mohanty v. State of Odisha
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Section 299, Section 300, and Section 304 Part I of IPC to determine the nature of the offence and the cons....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reformatory approach of the criminal justice system and the application of the doctrine of proportionality in imposing punishment.
The distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Sections 299 and 300 of IPC, and the application of the reformative theory of punishment in determining the appr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the dying declaration, the determination of the nature of the offense, and the application of the appropriate section of the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles to distinguish between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under IPC, and the consideration ....
The court established that the distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the intent and premeditation of the accused.
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.