Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 14737
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
VIJAY BISHNOI
NANAK RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRLAD/11/2018
The intention to kill is the key factor in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide. In the absence of such intention, the offence would fall under the exception contained in Section 300 IPC and would be punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Headnote:
MURDER - CULPABLE HOMICIDE - DISTINCTION - INTENTION TO KILL - SECTION 300, 302, 304 IPC - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fired a gunshot on the chest of the deceased on account of a quarrel. The appellant contended that the gun-shot was fired accidentally and he had no intention to kill the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had the knowledge that due to gunshot injury, the deceased could be died, but it cannot be gathered that he had intention to kill the deceased, particularly when no previous animosity is established between the parties, and the appellant had no motive to kill the deceased.
Issues: Whether the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Rampal Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 289 and Mohd. Rafiq vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 10 SCC 706 to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide. The court held that the present case falls under the exception contained in Section 300 IPC and is a simpliciter case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part. The conviction awarded to the appellant under Section 302 IPC was converted into the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant was reduced to eight years.
Judgment
10/01/2023 By the Court (Per Hon’ble Vijay Bishnoi, J)
The present criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.11/2016 (C.I.S. No.14/2016), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
Brief facts of the case are that P.W.-3 Najar Singh lodged a written report (Exhibit/P-5) before the SHO, Police Station, Gajsinghpur, District Sriganganagar stating therein that he is resident of Srikaranpur and having four daughters and one son namely Jagsir Singh aged about 26 years. He also stated in the written report that accused Nanak Ram is his neighbour and on
24.03.2016, at about 02:30 PM, he was at his house and his wife, son Jagsir Singh and daughter-in-law were celebrating Holi in their house; the house of neighbour Nanak Ram is seen from his house because the height of wall situated in between their houses is short; at that time, accused Nanak Ram was in drunken state and was hurling abuses, upon which, his son Jagsir Singh went to the house of Nanak Ram along with one Balvinder Singh son of Sampurn Singh and asked him not to hurl abuses, then suddenly, Nanak Ram got annoyed and brought a gun from a room of his house and fired a gunshot on the chest of his son Jagsir Singh. It is further stated in the written report that he and his family members witnessed the said incident while standing in their house. At that time, son-in-law of Nanak Singh’s brother was also present in the house and his son Jagsir Singh was taken to a government hospital at Srikaranpur in 108 ambulance where he died on account of gunshot injury caused by convict - Nanak Ram.
On receiving this report, the Police registered FIR No.39/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station, Gajsinghpur and started investigation. After investigation, the Police filed charge- sheet against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the matter was committed to the trial court.
The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant has denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial.
To prove its case against the appellant, the prosecution has produced as many as 16 prosecution witnesses and also got exhibited around 41 documents. The statement of the convict appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein the appellant had stated that he had no intention to kill the deceased and the gun-shot was fired accidentally.
The trial court after hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and after scrutinizing the evidence available on record has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, however, acquitted him from the charges for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court has sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. HSS Kharlia assisted by Ms.
Kinjal Purohit, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not questioned the correctness of the findings of the trial court holding the appellant guilty of the said criminal offence, however, the only contention raised before us is that even as per the prosecution case, the only offence for which the appellant can be convicted and sentenced would be under Part II of Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel has argued that from the evidence available on record, it can be gathered that though, the appellant had knowledge that his act of firing gunshot is likely to cause death, but he had no inte
