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

1996 Supreme(Raj) 367

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : V.S.KOKJE,A.K.SINGH
RAMJAN KHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 132 Of 1991
Decided On : 07/12/1996

Advocates Appeared:
M.K.GARG, M.L.Garg, V.R.Mehta

The Court's interpretation of Section 302/34 IPC and its application to the facts of the case established the principle that common intention to cause death can be inferred from the participation of the accused persons in the assault and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302/34 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX - EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY - COMMON INTENTION - INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE - ASSESSMENT OF DEFENSE - APPLICATION OF SECTION 302/34 IPC - CONVICTION AND SENTENCING.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Ramjan Khan, Sultan Khan, and Kalu Khan, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, for the murder of Yusuf Khan under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with weapons, attacked Yusuf Khan, causing his death. The appellants denied the charges and claimed false implication.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court, after examining the evidence, found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court relied on the testimony of three eyewitnesses who had witnessed the attack and identified the appellants as the assailants. The Court also considered the medical evidence, which corroborated the eyewitnesses' accounts of the injuries sustained by the deceased.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellants had the common intention to cause the death of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was credible and reliable. The Court also found that the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitnesses' accounts of the injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court further held that the appellants had the common intention to cause the death of the deceased, as evidenced by their participation in the attack and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge.

Judgment


V. S. KOKJE, J.

( 1 ) RAMJAN Khan, Sultan Khan and Kalu Khan who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I. P. C. and who have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with Rs. 500/- as fine each have preferred this appeal against their conviction and the sentence.

( 2 ) A first information report was lodged with the police station Chattargarh District Bikaner on 2nd February, 1989 at 5. 30 p. m. Prathvi Khan son of Kalu Khan alleging that he along with his elder brother Yusuf and Karim Khan s/o Dadruddin had come to Chattagarh at about 8. 00 a. m. for selling Gwar which they had transported in a tractor. Ahmed Khan s/o Karim Khan had also come along with them. At about 10. 00 a. m. they reached Chattargarh and unloaded their bags of Gwar at Kherajs Shop and Karim Khans bags at Bhagwandass shop. Yusuf was at Kherajs shop and Prathavi Khan and Karim Khan and Ahmed Khan were on the shop of Bhagwandas. At about 5. 00 p. m. when Prathvi Khan, Karim Khan and Ahmed Khan were going from the shop of Bhagwandas to the tea shop of Kartar for having tea, near Kartars tea shop they saw Yusuf coming from the direction of Kherajs shop towards Them. When Yusuf reached in front of Peeru Khans Flour Mill Ramjan Khan, Sultan Khan s/o Khane Khan, Kalu Khan s/o Karim Khan came running. Ramjan had Barchi with him. Sultan Khan had a Rod of Kassi and Kalu Khan had an axe, Ramjan gave a Barchi blow on the head of Yusuf and said do not leave the enemy alive, kill him. Kalu Khan gave an axe blow from the sharp edged side on the head and Sultan struck with Banda on the shoulder. Yusuf fell down and thereafter Ramjan struck with a Barchi from the sharp edged side on his jaw, Kalu Khan gave an axe blow on his neck from the sharp edged side. Prathvi Khan, Ahmed Khan and Karim Khan rushed to the spot and the accused persons ran away seeing them. Yusuf Khan died on the spot. It was also stated in the first information report that a criminal case for assaulting Ramjans brother was going on against the complainant party and offence was committed because of that enmity.

( 3 ) ON the aforesaid FIR investigations were undertaken and the accused persons were tried on charges under Sections 120b, 302 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. In their defence accused Ramjan Khan took the plea that on the day of the incident he had gone to the market for purchasing vegetables and he, his nephew Kalu had gone to the vegetable shop of Manak. Prathvi Khan and Yusuf Khan were sitting on the shop. On seeing Them, Prathvi Khan and Yusuf Khan abused them. He was drunk. He told Ramjan that Ramjan had sent him to jail, but they had got themselves released on bail. Ramjan and his nephew Kalu went away from the place without saying anything and went to Gopal Chandaks shop. His Munim Dhanna Dan was there. Ramjan took a paper from him and got an application written against Yusuf from Nijan Kalal, He took that application to Chactargarh police station and gave it to SHO Murlidhar. Murlidhar asked him to wait for some time. Then Prathvi Khan came there and lodged a report that Yusuf had been murdered. On this SHO asked Ramjan Khan to sit at the police station and went away. When he came back he arrested Ramjan Khan. Thus, the defence is of false implication.

( 4 ) ACCUSED Sultan Khan also took the defence of false implication and said that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. When he was arrested he was hit on the nose by the SHO which resulted in the bleading and his clothes were stained with blood. He stated that SHO did not recover any clothes from him and Danda was not recovered from him. The SHO purchased the Danda from Bazar and showed false recovery.

( 5 ) ACCUSED Kalu Khan took the defence that he and his uncle Ramjan were purchasing vegetables and Prathvi Khan was present at the shop with Yusuf. Yusuf was drunk and he abused them. Then Kalu Khan and his uncle Ramjan went to Chan











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