Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Barin Ghosh & U.C. Dhyani, JJ.
Jagat Singh and others - Appellants
versus
State of Uttaranchal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2004
Decided on: September 20, 2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. V.P. Bahuguna, Brief Holder for the State.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, based on the evidence presented and the intention of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - IPC Sections 302, 324, 323 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by witnesses and medical reports to establish the guilt of the accused. The court concludes that the accused are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part I) read with S.34 of IPC and sentences them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of 5,000/-.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an altercation between two families resulting in the death of Parwati Devi. The prosecution presented evidence from eyewitnesses and medical reports to establish the sequence of events and the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part I) read with S.34 of IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of 5,000/-.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the events leading to the death of Parwati Devi and the culpability of the accused in the altercation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence presented by witnesses and medical reports to determine the nature of the offense committed by the accused, ultimately concluding that they were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with S.34 of IPC and instead convicted the accused under Section 304 (Part I) read with S.34 of IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of 5,000/-. The bail of the accused was cancelled, and they were directed to surrender to serve the sentence.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Criminal law was set into motion at the instance of Lal Singh s/o Ram Singh, resident of Village Duni, Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh, who wrote a complaint to Officer In-Charge, reporting outpost, Gangolihat, within the jurisdiction of police station Berinag, enumerating the facts therein that some cattle entered into the field of Jagat Singh, a neighbour of informant Lal Singh. The family members of Jagat Singh accused Lal Singh of permitting the cattle into his field. An altercation took place between Lal Singh and family members of Jagat Singh. Jagat Singh hurled abuses at Lal Singh’s mother Parwati Devi. Despite being requested not to do so, Jagat Singh carrying dao (a sharp edged weapon), Narendra Singh armed with basula (carpenter’s axe), Parwati Devi (daughter of Jagat Singh) carrying moosal (a grinding instrument) and Hanuman carrying dao (a sharp edged weapon) started beating informant’s mother. They dragged Parwati Devi (mother of Lal Singh). Lal Singh, his sister Km. Govindi and brother Harak Singh tried to save their mother, but they were also beaten up by the accused persons. Parwati Devi (mother of Lal Singh) was beaten to death. It was alleged in said report that said incident took place on 18.01.2001, at 02:00 P.M. Lal Singh and others were witnesses to the said incident.
2) On the basis of said report, chick FIR was registered on 18.01.2001, at 04:00 P.M. against all the four accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323 of IPC. The incident took place on the selfsame date at 02:00 P.M. The distance between reporting outpost Gangolihat and the place of occurrence was 25 Kms. Hence, there appeared to be no delay in lodging the FIR.
3) Investigation started on the basis of said FIR. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC was submitted against Jagat Singh, Narendra Singh, Parwati Devi (daughter of accused Jagat Singh) and Hanuman Singh. When the prosecution opened the case, charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with S.34, S.307, S.324 read with S.34 and S.323 read with S.34 of IPC were framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. They were – P.W.1 Lal Singh, P.W.2 Km. Govindi, P.W.3 Dr. B.R. Singh, P.W.4 Harak Singh, P.W.5 Dr. Brij Mohan Singh Tolia, P.W.6 Constable Jasvir Singh, P.W.7 Gopal Ram and P.W.8 Sub Inspector Ram Avtar Singh. However, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused-appellants in defence.
5) After the prosecution evidence was closed, incriminating evidence was put to accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that the evidence adduced against them was false. After hearing both the parties, accused persons namely, Jagat Singh, Narendra Singh, Hanuman Singh and Parwati Devi (daughter of accused Jagat Singh) were convicted of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with S.34, S.324 read with S.34 and S.323 read with S.34 of I.P.C. However, all the four accused persons were acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. After hearing on sentence, all the four convicts were sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against said judgment, present criminal appeal was preferred.
6) Prosecution led the evidence by examining P.W.1 Lal Singh, who not only proved the contents of complaint (Ext. Ka-1) in his examination-in-chief, but also supported prosecution story. He was the informant as well as the eyewitness to the incident. He narrated the details of incident in his examination-in-chief. He stated on oath, what was reported by him in the complaint. In addition to the above, he also said that an altercation took place with Jagat Singh’s family members in the morning, but the same was pacified with the intervention of v
