IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Dharmendra @ Chandra Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 192 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of the facts leading to conviction (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. arguments regarding the charge levels involved (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court's assessment and analysis of evidence (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 39) |
| 4. legal standards for differentiating between charges (Para 28 , 41) |
| 5. final judgment and order of the court (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by appellant-Dharmendra alias Chandra Prakash against a judgment and order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 336 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo additional imprisonment of one year.
Brief Facts of the case
2. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal, in short compass, are that a written report was handed over by the first informant Rohit Kumar, son of Kailash Narain at police station Uldan at 01:30 AM on 23.07.2014 that on 22.07.2017 at about 08:30 PM, his cousin Dharmendra (hereinafter referred to as the accused-appellant), son of Vishwanath Srivas, who is permanent resident of village Dhabari, police station Tahrauli, district Jhansi and is presently residing with his grand-maternal father (Nana) at village Rajpura, police station Uldan, district Jhansi. Since accused used to consume intoxicant, there had been altercations between husband and wife. On hearing the shrieks from inside the house of the appellant, when he along with Jugul Kishore and Lalta Prasad went inside the house, they saw the accused assaulting his wife-Smt Neetu Devi from sickle (Hansia) on her face and neck. The FIR further recounts that on arrival of the witnesses, accused fled away with bloodstained Hansia (sickle) and in bloodstained clothes, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. The information in respect of the aforesaid incident was communicated to the father of the deceased, who also arrived at the spot. On account of the injuries received, Smt. Neetu Devi (hereinafter referred to the deceased) succumbed to the injuries.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at Case Crime No. 80 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC, police station Uldan, district Jhansi.
4. After the registration of the first information report, the law set into motion and investigation of the case was taken up by PW-7, Inspector Satyendra Singh, who after completing necessary formalities, submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. Bloodstained sickle and bloodstained clothes of the accused were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra.
5. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No. 336 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC&ST Act, Jhansi vide order dated 15.09.2015 framed the charges against the accused- appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to him.
6. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, out of which PW-1, Rohit Kumar is the first informant of the case, PW-2, Jugul Kishore, PW-3, Lalta Prasad are the witnesses of facts, remaining witnesses are formal one.
7. PW-1, Rohit Kumar is the first informant of the case. In his examination-in-chief, he has reiterated the versions given in the FIR. He further deposed that on 23.07.2014, on the pointing out of the accused, the investigating officer recovered weapon of assault, i.e. bloodstained sickle (Hansia) and bloodstained clothes of the accused, on which he put his signature, which he proved as Ext. Ka-2 and Ka-3. He was also the witness of inquest.
Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh
V. Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala
Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana
Ghapoo Yadav Vs. State of M.P.
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The appellate court modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC, recognizing the absence of premeditation and intention to kill during a sudden altercation influenced by the accused's....
The court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden figh....
The court held that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of premeditation and presence of heat of passion.
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.