SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 112

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
The State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Sachendra Singh Rawat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2022
Decided On : 04-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Rawat, Adv Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR. Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Adv
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Neha Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Fatal blow inflicted on head of victim with great force will constitute offence of murder.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Trial Court convicted accused for offence under Section 302 IPC – Incident took place in two places – Second incident cannot be said to be a result of sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel – High Court has erred in observing and/or accepting case on behalf of accused that incident had taken place due to a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel in Mehandi ceremony – High Court has erred in observing that case would fall under Fourth exception to Section 300 IPC – High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered multiple injuries sustained by deceased – Main cause of death was fatal injuries sustained by deceased on his head due to blow with great force – Case would certainly fall under Clauses Thirdly and/or Fourthly to Section 300 IPC – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court altering finding of murder to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and consequently converting sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment hereby quashed and set aside – Respondent-accused held guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC for having killed and/or committed murder of deceased and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment – Judgment and order passed by trial Court convicting accused for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment restored. (Paras 5, 5.1, 5.2, 7 and 8)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent – accused and has held that culpable homicide in the instant case is not murder and consequently has converted sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment, State of Uttarakhand has preferred present appeal. High Court has believed the evidence of all eye witnesses including wife of deceased, however, has held that culpable homicide did not amount to murder, solely on the ground that it is not a cold blooded murder; rather it is a sudden fight which ensued in the heat of passion.

Findings of Court:

Exception Fourth to Section 300 IPC ought not to have been applied by the High Court at all considering the fact that the main second incident had taken place subsequently at 12:00 in the night, much after the first incident of altercation was over in the Mehandi ceremony. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on facts as well as on law.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent-accused and has held that culpable homicide in the instant case is not murder and consequently has converted the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment, the State of Uttarakhand has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the respondent herein-original accused was charged and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of one Virendra Singh. As per the case of the prosecution, on 26.11.2014, the entire village was celebrating Mehendi Ceremony on the occasion of the wedding of one Anil. In the ceremony, the entire village participated including the deceased Virendra Singh and the accused Sachendra Singh Rawat. In the night, some altercations took place between the deceased Virendra Singh and the accused Sachendra Singh Rawat. But due to intervention of the villagers, the matter did not proceed further. After the dinner, at about 12:00 in the night, the accused attacked Virendra Singh by giving him blows by a “Danda/Phakadiyat” a rough piece of wood, which he was carrying. The blow was on the head of the deceased. Virendra Singh ran towards his house for safety. The accused ran after the deceased with “Phakadiyat” in his hand. The deceased sustained multiple injuries on the head. There was a skull fracture and a frontal wound on left side. The complainant, who was the wife of the deceased tried to rescue her husband, but failed. Meanwhile, several blows were given to her husband. The mother-in-law of the complainant, Geeta Devi also came to the rescue of the deceased. Due to grievous injuries, Virendra Singh fell unconscious. The deceased was initially taken to Dr. Sharma, who resided at Ghansali, which was only a few kilometers away, but considering the condition of the injured, he was referred to Mahant Indresh Hospital at Dehradun, where he was operated upon. After a few days, i.e. on 5.12.2014, Virendra Singh passed away.

2.1 That, the wife of the deceased lodged an FIR against the accused-respondent herein. Investigation was done by the police officer, in charge of the police station. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of the eye witnesses including the complainant, i.e. the wife of the deceased. The Investigating Officer also collected the medical evidence including post mortem report etc. Thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court where the accused was put to trial. Accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

2.2 To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. Many of the witnesses were the eye witnesses including the complainant, i.e. the wife of the deceased. The prosecution also examined Dr. Pankaj Arora, PW-11 who had operated upon the deceased. After closure of the evidence on the prosecution side, a further statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, on appreciation of evidence and believing the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, Darshani Devi, the wife of the deceased and others and considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the trial Court held that the culpable homicide was murder and thereby convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top