Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Vinod Diwakar, JJ.
Rajendra @ Rajendra Prasad and others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1983
Decided On : 15-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
R.R. Singh, Amar Saran, Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma, R.B. Sahai, R.S. Chauhan, Saroj Kumar Yadav, Satya Prakash Srivastava and Shailesh Kumar Shukla for the Appellants; D.G.A., A.G.A. and S.P. Singh for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an act committed in the heat of passion without premeditation can be classified as culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, not murder.

Headnote:
Culpable Homicide - Murder - IPC Sections 300, 304 - The court interpreted the exceptions to culpable homicide under IPC, particularly focusing on the heat of passion and lack of premeditation, leading to a conviction under Section 304 instead of Section 302.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a violent altercation between two families over grazing cattle, resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to others. The incident escalated from a children's quarrel to a fight involving adults, leading to serious consequences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment without premeditation, and the actions of the accused did not amount to murder but rather to culpable homicide under Section 304 (Part II) IPC.
Issues: Whether the actions of the accused constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation indicated that the case fell under the exceptions of culpable homicide, specifically in the heat of passion.
Result: The appeal was partly allowed, and the conviction was altered to Section 304 (Part II) IPC with a fine imposed.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Diwakar, J.

As per the version of the First Information Report dated 5.7.1979, certain children of the family of the first informant - Budhiram, had taken out their cattle for grazing and there they had an altercation with the children of the family of Kishun Chauhan who was living in the neighbourhood. When the alteration occurred between the children and certain noises were made because of that from the village of the Chauhans, Rajendra, Surendra & Mahendra sons of Sukhai Chauhan; Kishun son of Ramnath, Fauji & Ramchandra sons of Kishun; Bahadur and Tejas sons of Raghunandan came on the spot. It has been stated in the First Information Report that Rajendra was carrying a Ballam; Surendra and Mahendra were carrying lathies; Kishun was also having a lathi; Fauji and Ramchandra were having Ballam; Subedar, Bahadur and Tejas were carrying lathis.

2. As per the F.I.R. version apprehending that there would be a scuffle between the children who were grazing the cattle with the grownup persons. Balram, Sarvjeet and Shrinath who were the relatives of the first informant reached the spot. Again there was a fight between the two sides and Balram, Ramcharan and Shrinath were grievously beaten and they fell down. In the First Information Report, it has been stated that when alarms were raised, Barsati son of Ram Adhar, Hariram son of Samodh and Beni Ram son of Ajor reached there on the spot and with their help the lives of Balram, Ram Charan and Srinath were saved. They were put on cots and efforts were made to take them to the Thana. In fact Balram had died. Upon the First Information Report being lodged, investigation ensued and the police took the plane soil and the soil having blood in its custody and prepared the relevant recovery memos. The injury on the injured were examined and of the deceased a post mortem examination was done.

3. On 5.7.1979 itself at 9:20pm, the panchayatnama was also prepared. Upon completion of the investigation when the police submitted its report, the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, on 9.3.1981 took cognizance of the matter and charged the accused persons, namely, (1) Rajendra @ Rajendra Prasad, (2) Fauji alias Faujdar, (3) Ram Chander, (4) Surendra, (5) Mahendra (6) Subedar, (7) Ram Kishun, (8) Bahadur and (9) Teras for being guilty under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC and also they were who charged under Section 307/149 of the IPC.

4. The accused persons denied the charges and, therefore, the trial commenced.

5. From the side of the prosecution as many as 12 prosecution witnesses were produced. During trial Bahadur had died and, therefore, the statements of the remaining accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.P. Yadav assisted by Sri P.K. Vishwakarma has argued that if all the evidence as was brought forth is perused, it becomes evident that the incident occurred because of the fact that children from the side of the first informant who had gone to graze their cattle, and the children from the side of the accused persons who had also gone to graze their cattle, an altercation had occurred and when calls for help were raised by the children from both the sides, elder persons from the side of the accused and the informants had assembled at the place of incident and in the heat of the moment the entire incident had occurred.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Thana was only 800 meter away from the place of incident but the informant's side took almost two hours to take the injured to the police station and not to any hospital and therefore Balram, because of this delay, died in the route of the police station.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that if the entire evidence of the prosecution is to be believed and all the defence is to be disregarded, then at the best, the case could not travel beyond the offence under Section 304 Part - II of the I.P.C.

9. The depositions of P.W. - 1