Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Rohit Arya, Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ.
Naresh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2014
Decided On : 14-09-2022
FIR - Culpable Homicide - 299, 300 - The court discussed the non-mentioning of the assailant in the FIR and its impact on the prosecution case. It referred to various authorities to establish that the omission of naming an accused in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case if the statement of the witnesses is found to be trustworthy. The court also analyzed the interpretation of relevant provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of IPC and discussed the mental element in culpable homicide, emphasizing the importance of intention and knowledge. It referred to various judgments to establish the different degrees of mental attitude required for the offence of culpable homicide. The court ultimately modified the conviction of the appellant from section 302 IPC to one under section 304 Part II IPC, considering the lack of intention to commit murder.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC for causing the death of the deceased by gunshot injury. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of witnesses and medical evidence to establish the appellant's involvement in the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the prosecution was able to prove the incident beyond reasonable doubt and establish the homicidal nature of the death, it failed to prove the element of intention in committing the crime. The court concluded that the appellant did not have the intention to commit murder, and therefore, modified the conviction to one under section 304 Part II IPC.
Issues: The primary issue was the impact of non-mentioning of the assailant in the FIR on the prosecution case. The court also discussed the mental element in culpable homicide and the requirement of intention and knowledge for the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of relevant provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of IPC, as well as various judgments establishing the different degrees of mental attitude required for the offence of culpable homicide. The court ultimately concluded that the lack of intention to commit murder led to the modification of the appellant's conviction.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction of the appellant from section 302 IPC to one under section 304 Part II IPC, considering the lack of intention to commit murder.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal had been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/12/2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.127/2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia, whereby the appellant had been convicted under section 302 IPC and had been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1, 000/- and in the event of default in depositing the fine amount had to undergo a further period of 1 year.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 29/05/2010 complainant Ramsakhi lodged a report with Police Station Indergarh that in between 7:00- 8:00 a.m., when she was preparing food and her husband, deceased Sanman, along with one Naresh and Munna were sitting in front of the house, she heard a shout that someone had shot her husband Sanman. Hearing it she ran outside and found her husband being picked up and shifted to tractor trolly of Naresh. She also sat in the trolly, where she was told by her husband Sanman that he had been shot by Shishupal Yadav on his right thigh, but before they could reach the Police Station, Sanman became unconcious. On the behest of Ramsakhi, at Police Station Indergarh, F.I.R. was recorded at Crime No.81/2010.
3. During Investigation statements of complainant Ramsakhi were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 30/05/2010. In her statement she narrated the a different story that at 7:00- 8:00 a.m. on 29/05/2010 when she was preparing the food that she heard someone shouting that Sanman, her husband had been shot. She ran out and saw that in the backyard of Naresh Pandit, her husband was lying down with his leg injured and Naresh was standing with a gun in his hand. Blood was oozing out of the wound. She heard her brother-in-law Preetam, who was also present on the spot, accusing Naresh as he had not done the right thing and asking as to why did he shot Sanman? She heard Naresh replying that due to Sanman he had a fight with Shishupal and Pratipal and just to involve Shishupal and Praitpal in a crime he had shot Sanman, there is nothing to worry, Sanman will recover soon, he is with them. Naresh then brought his tractor trolly and with the help of his father Maitheli and one Munna shifted Sanman into the trolly and asked Ramsakhi to accompany them in the trolly. In the midst of the way Ramsakhi was told to report to the Police naming Shishupal as the assailant, else she would also be shot. Frightened she lodged the F.I.R. in the name of Shishupal.
4. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellant under section 307 and 302 IPC and after committal the matter was placed before the Sessions Court. Vide separate order dated 20/10/2010 charge under section 302 IPC were framed against the appellant and the Session was put to trial. In all 14 witnesses were examined, PW/1 Ramsakhi Bai W/o deceased Sanman, PW/2 Preetam s/o Badri, PW/3 Munnalal s/o Jawaharlal, PW/4 Rahul s/o Ramgopal, PW/5 Devendra s/o Rajjan Singh, PW/6 Mansingh Kousar s/o Sumer Singh, PW/7 Dr. Govind Singh s/o Nathu Singh, PW/8 Ajmer Singh s/o Harprasad, PW/9 Munni Bai w/o Sitaram, PW/10 Albel Singh s/o Sanman, PW/11 Santosh s/o Bhagirath, PW/12 Shankar s/o Shriram, PW/13 Lakhan Singh s/o Sullu and PW/14 D.S. Parihar s/o Late Shri L.S. Parihar respectively.
5. After detailed scrutiny learned Trial Court, the appellant herein was convicted under section 302 of IPC for the aforementioned period as mentioned above. Aggrieved this appeal had been preferred.
ARGUMENTS
6. Learned counsel for the appellant with vehemence argued that in the F.I.R name of one Shishupal Yadav was mentioned as the assailant upon whom there was allegation of causing gunshot injury to the deceased and the name of the appellant was not mentioned therein, therefore, the F.I.R does not corroborate the prosecution version. It was further argued that there were major contradictions in the statement of the complainant Ramsakhi recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein al
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention and knowledge for the offence of culpable homicide, and the different degrees of mental attitude required for the o....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented by the prosecution only supported a charge under Section 304 Part –II IPC, and the appellant's conviction and sentence ....
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
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
