Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
SUJOY PAUL, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, JJ.
Himanshu Kuril – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. A. No. 241 of 2012
Decided On : 17-03-2021
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - [MURDER] - [IPC Section 299, 300] - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the appellant had caused the death of the victim with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. However, the court found that the injuries were not on vital parts of the body and the appellant did not have the intention to cause death. Therefore, the appellant was convicted under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of the victim by inflicting knife injuries on the left thigh. The appellant claimed innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated due to a dispute involving his father. The appeal was filed against the trial court's judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had caused the death of the victim with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. However, the injuries were not on vital parts of the body and the appellant did not have the intention to cause death. Therefore, the appellant was convicted under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's actions amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Section 299 and 300 of IPC to determine the appellant's intention and knowledge regarding the likely consequence of the inflicted injuries. The court also considered the nature of the injuries, the words used by the appellant, and other circumstances to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and he was instead convicted under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC and sentenced to 10 years of R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
JUDGMENT :
Shailendra Shukla, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against judgment dated 13.02.2012 pronounced by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Session Trial No. 302/2010, wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story in short was that on 01.04.2010 at about 10:30 pm, the deceased Neeraj Bhadoriya was talking to Rohit Bhadoriya (PW/1) near Mehak Chicken Centre at Mahanadda Nagar, Ujjain and at that point of time, the appellant arrived on motorcycle and told Neeraj that he has not returned a single penny out of an amount of Rs. 6000/- loaned to him. The appellant then inflicted 3-4 knife blows on the left thigh of Neeraj (deceased). Thereafter, the appellant called up one Veenu Kushwaha (PW/2) on his mobile phone from the spot and told him that he has duly dealt with his confidante' i.e. Neeraj Bhadoriya (deceased) and told him to pick him up. Thereafter, appellant went away on his motorcycle. At that point of time, the deceased was still breathing. Neeraj was taken in police van to District Hospital where he was examined by Dr. R.C. Pandya (PW/8). This was followed by lodging of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) at 11:45 pm. Neeraj however succumbed to his injuries on the same night and his postmortem was conducted by Dr. Kumawat (PW/7) who found that the death was on account of excessive blood loss from the injuries sustained on the upper part of left thigh of the deceased. Spot Map (Ex.P/2) was then prepared, accused was arrested on the basis of his memorandum statements, a knife, a mobile SIM and trousers allegedly worn at the time of incident were recovered by IO (PW/15).
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before CJM, Ujjain. The trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.
4. Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in all including eye-witnesses. In his accused statements, the appellant took a defense that he has been falsely implicated by Veenu Kushwaha for whom the appellant's father had stood guarantor in respect of a JCB Machine purchased by Veenu Kushwaha. When the bank could not recover the loan amount from the guarantor i.e., the father of appellant, the appellant was falsely implicated in order to wreck vengeance. The appellant has examined four defense witnesses in his support.
5. In the appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., it has been stated that the trial Court failed to see that the injury was not caused on the vital part of the body and if there was an intention of appellant to commit murder of the deceased, he could have stabbed the deceased on his chest or neck or other vital organs. It is further submitted that in the FSL report, there is no conclusion regarding the presence of human blood on the knife.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant in his oral submission has stated that if at all the prosecution evidence were to be believed as it stands, then also no case is made out under Section 302 IPC and at the most the appellant can be convicted only under Section 304 (Part 1) of IPC.
7. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant as well as State were heard.
8. The question is whether in view of the evidence available on record, the appellant can be said to have been wrongly convicted under Section 302 IPC ?
9. In order to answer the aforesaid question, the trial court was required to give its opinion in respect of following questions:
(i) Whether deceased Neeraj had died due to injuries found on his person ?.
(ii) Whether appellant Himanshu had inflicted the aforesaid injuries to Neeraj ?.
(iii) Whether the appellant is guilty of committing culpable homicidal of Neeraj ?.
(iv) Whether in this case the culpable homicidal amounted to murder ?.
10. Dr. R.C. Pandya (PW/8) had found six injuries on the person of deceased (Rahul) in his MLC Ex
AI
The absence of intent to kill led to the reclassification of charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Point of law : Motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced.
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The absence of intent to kill and the nature of injuries led to a modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II.
In cases of sudden quarrel and single injury, the nature of the injury and circumstances must be considered to determine the offense under Section 300 IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
