advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, August 30, 2013

Section 302 or Section 304 = whether the offence falls under first part of Section 304 or the second part.= Having regard to the parameters indicated in Gurmukh Singh’s case (supra), the offence seems to fall under the second part. There is no evidence of motive or previous enmity. The incident has taken place on the spur of the moment. There is no evidence regarding the intention behind the fatal consequence of the blow. There was only one blow. The accused is young. There was no premeditation. The evolution of the incident would show that it was in the midst of a sudden fight. There is no criminal background or adverse history of the appellant. It was a trivial quarrel among the villagers on account of a simple issue. The fatal blow was in the course of a scuffle between two persons. There has been no other act of cruelty or unusual conduct on the part of the appellant. The deceased was involved in the scuffle in the presence of his wife and he had actually been called upon by her to the spot so as to settle the score with the accused persons. The deceased had, in the scuffle, overpowered the first accused. That first accused was acquitted. Thus, considering all these aspects, we are of the view that it is a fit case to alter the punishment of imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-. Ordered accordingly. Since the deceased has been left with a young widow and one child, the amount of fine thus recovered shall be paid as compensation to the widow and the child. In the event of the appellant defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of two years. In case the appellant has already served the term as above, he shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. The appeal is allowed as above.

                       published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40704
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                      CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION


                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1285   OF 2013
             [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3028 of 2012]

Chenda @ Chanda Ram                                … Appellant (s)

                                   Versus

State of Chhatisgarh                         … Respondent (s)


                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:




      Leave granted.

2.    ‘Homicide’, as derived from Latin, literally means the act of  killing
a human being. 
Under Section 299  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Code’), homicide becomes culpable  when  a  human  being
terminates the life of another in a blameworthy manner. Culpability  depends
on the knowledge, motive and the manner of  the  act  of  the  accused.  
The
offence is punishable  under  either  Section  302,  or  Section  304  which
consists of two parts. 
In the case before us, we are called upon to  examine
the nature of the offence of culpable homicide for which the  appellant  has
been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 and  sentenced  to  life
imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
3.    It is sad and unfortunate that  the  epicenter  of  the  matter  is  a
simple quarrel on a trivial issue – a cat was chased away by  the  child  of
the deceased and, in the process, it landed on  the  terrace  of  the  first
accused where some gram was kept for drying. The appellant before us is  the
second  accused  who  inflicted  the  fatal  blow.  The  first  accused  who
initiated the quarrel was, however, acquitted of the charges  under  Section
302 read with Section 34, for want of evidence.

BRIEF FACTS
4.    On 26.02.1993 at about 04.00 P.M., one master Kishore  Kumar,  son  of
the deceased Ramgulal, residing in a remote village Deori Tola  in  district
Durg, presently in Chhattisgarh State, threw a stone on a cat, which,  while
jumping, landed on the terrace of the first accused Anjoriram where  he  had
kept his gram. The boy was scolded badly and one Chanda Ram beat him with  a
cane. Hearing his loud weeping, his mother Heminbai  reached  the  spot  and
there was a verbal altercation between her and the  accused.  She  told  the
child to call his father Ramgulal. There was a scuffle between Ramgulal  and
Anjoriram and the appellant-Chenda  alias  Chanda  Ram,  in  the  meanwhile,
struck the head  of  Ramgulal  with  a  tekani  (piece  of  wood)  used  for
supporting bullock carts. He fell down immediately. The  neighbours  shifted
him to his house, thereafter to the District Hospital and,  from  there,  to
the hospital of the Bhilai Steel Plant at Bilaspur where he  died  at  about
08.25 P.M., nearly four hours after the incident. Based on the  report  from
the District Hospital, the case was  initially  charged  under  Section  307
read with Section 34 and afterwards, it was converted to  Section  302  read
with Section 34. Anjoriram is the first accused  and  the  appellant  Chanda
Ram, the second. Nineteen witnesses were examined  of  which  four  are  eye
witnesses including the wife and child of the deceased. The  Sessions  Court
entered a finding that  the  appellant  Chanda  Ram  had  the  intention  of
killing Ramgulal when he hit on his head  with  a  weighted  tekani  due  to
which he suffered serious head injury involving five fractures  and,  hence,
he was convicted under Section 302. However, taking note of the age  of  the
accused as twenty three years and other  circumstances,  the  appellant  was
awarded life imprisonment. The first accused  Anjoriram  was  acquitted  for
want of any evidence in relation  to  the  act  leading  to  the  death.  In
appeal, as per the  impugned  judgment  dated  18.06.2010,  the  High  Court
concurred with the findings of the Sessions Court and held that:
      “16. From the overall evidence available on record, we find  that  the
      quarrel started when the stone  pelted  by  child  Kishore  Kumar  for
      hitting the cat fell on the terrace of Anjoriram where gram was  kept.
      While Anjoriram was engaged in scuffle with Ramgulal,  who  came  much
      after the initial quarrel of beating of Kishore Kumar and quarrel with
      his mother Heminbai, the appellant picked up a heavy wodden plank  use
      for support of bullock cart and assault the deceased on his vital part
      head with such force that  he  sustained  fracture  of  both  parietal
      bones, fracture of nose and fracture of occipital bones and died  just
      four hours after the assault. We are unable to accept the argument  of
      learned counsel for the appellant that  the  incident  occurred  as  a
      result of sudden provocation, without premeditation  on  the  spur  of
      moment. From the evidence available on record, we have already pointed
      out that when the deceased and  co-accused Anjoriram were involved  in
      the scuffle, the appellant gave a fatal blow on the vital part head of
      the deceased without any provocation. Intention of the appellant is to
      be gathered from the weapon of offence used  for  assault,  the  force
      with which and the part on which the assault was made. In the  instant
      case, the assault was made by a heavy wooden plank with a force on the
      vital part head of the deceased resulting  in  multiple  fractures  of
      both parietal bones, nose bone and occipital bones.


      17.   On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we  are  of  the  opinion
      that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section
      302 of the IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment.  There  is  no
      illegality or infirmity  in  the  impugned  judgment.  The  appeal  is
      without any substance and deserves to be dismissed.”


5.     It is contended on behalf of  the  appellant  that  the  evidence  if
properly appreciated would lead to only one inference,  that  the  appellant
did not have any intention to commit murder. There was only  a  single  blow
with the stick, the same happened to be on the head,  it  was  done  on  the
spur of the moment, it was without any premeditation and that it was in  the
process of a fight between the parties. There is no evidence  regarding  any
previous enmity between the parties and, thus, the  case  would  come  under
Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Code.
6.    On behalf of the respondent State, it is submitted that  on  the  only
ground that there was a mere single blow, the offence  cannot  be  roped  in
under Exception 4 since, admittedly, the fight was not with the accused.  It
is further contended that the fatal blow was on a  vital  organ,  i.e.,  the
head, with great force resulting in serious injury to the head causing  five
fractures, the injury is sufficient in the  ordinary  course  of  nature  to
cause death and, thus, both intention and knowledge  are  decipherable  from
the conduct of the  accused  appellant  and,  hence,  the  conviction  under
Section 302 is to be upheld.

7.    The crucial aspect to be analysed in this case is whether the  conduct
of the appellant in inflicting  the  fatal  blow  is  intentional  and  with
knowledge or with knowledge only. The medical report  given  by  PW14  shows
that the injury caused by the weapon used by the appellant is sufficient  in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, we have to analyse  the
evidence in the light of Section 300 clause “Thirdly”  and  examine  whether
Exception 4 to Section 300 is applicable. Section  300  “Thirdly”  reads  as
follows:
      “300. Murder.-Except  in  the  cases  hereinafter  excepted,  culpable
      homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is  caused  is  done
      with the intention of causing death, or-

                            xxx   xxx   xxx  xxx


           Thirdly.-If it is done with  the  intention  of  causing  bodily
      injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
      sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)




           Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code, reads as follows:
           “Exception 4.-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed
      without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon  a
      sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken  undue  advantage
      or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

           Explanation.-It is immaterial in such cases which  party  offers
      the provocation or commits the first assault.”

                                                         (Emphasis supplied)



8.    If the case falls under Exception 4, then the further  inquiry  should
be as to whether the case falls under the first part of Section 304  or  the
second part, which reads as follows:
           “304-Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to  murder.-
      Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting  to  murder  shall  be
      punished  with  imprisonment  for  life,  or  imprisonment  of  either
      description for a term which may extent to ten years, and  shall  also
      be liable to fine, if the act by which the death  is  caused  is  done
      with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily  injury
      as is likely to cause death,

            or with imprisonment of either description for a term which  may
      extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the  act  is  done
      with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but  without  any
      intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is  likely
      to cause death.”

                                                         (Emphasis supplied)




9.    All the eye witnesses have narrated the evolution of the  quarrel  and
about the conduct of the appellant inflicting the injury  with  tekani  used
for supporting bullock carts. PW2-Heminbai, wife of  deceased,  reached  the
spot on  finding  her  child  weeping  on  account  of  a  cane  beating  by
Anjoriram. There was verbal altercation between herself and  Anjoriram.  She
asked her son PW5-Kishore Kumar to call  her  husband  Ramgulal  (deceased).
During the scuffle that followed, Chanda Ram hit Ramgulal on his  head  once
and she caught hold of Ramgulal when he fell down. According to  her,  there
was previous enmity with the accused persons.  PW5-child  Kishore  Kumar  is
the second eyewitness. He deposed that he had thrown a stone on  a  cat  and
in the process, it ran away and landed on the roof of  the  accused  persons
due to which some gram kept  on  the  terrace  fell  down.  Infuriated,  the
appellant Chanda Ram beat him on his leg with a cane.  He  started  to  weep
and his mother came to the spot. She questioned the appellant as to  why  he
beat the child and she told Kishore Kumar to call his father so as  to  have
a final decision about the ongoing fights. He went weeping to his father  to
call him to the spot immediately. A scuffle between the father Ramgulal  and
Anjoriram followed. Anjoriram hit Ramgulal with a screwdriver  on  his  nose
while the appellant hit Ramgulal on the head with tekani.  Resultantly,  his
father fell down. He  was  shifted  to  the  house  and  thereafter  to  the
hospital. PW9-Latabai, resides adjacent to the house of  the  deceased.  She
has also stated that during the scuffle between Anjoriram and the  deceased,
it was Chanda Ram who hit the head of Ramgulal with  the  tekani.  According
to PW11-Kartikram, during the verbal altercation between the  first  accused
Anjoriram and PW2-Heminbai, Ramgulal (deceased) came to the spot  and  there
was a scuffle between  Anjoriram  and  Ramgulal.  During  the  scuffle,  the
accused  Chanda  Ram  hit  Ramgulal  once  on  the  head  with  tekani   and
consequently, Ramgulal fell down. Anjoriram also fell  down,  the  hands  of
Anjoriram and Ramgulal were tied to each other and it  is  PW2-Heminbai  who
separated Anjoriram. PW14-Dr. R. N. Pandey who  conducted  the  autopsy  has
stated that he had noted the following injuries:
(1)   Cut wound on the head of size 4inch x 3inch bone deep.
(2)   Floated swelling on head and nose and on both the eyes.
(3)   There was fracture in skull on both sides of cuttlebone,  in  bell  up
      skull and also in the bone of nose.
(4)   Fractures were also found in the left parietal and occipital  bone  of
      the Skull, there were total 5 fractures in the skull.

10.   According to Dr. Pandey, those injuries can  be  caused  by  one  blow
with the weapon of offence  and  that  the  injury  was  sufficient  in  the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
11.   The landmark judgment in Virsa Singh vs. State of  Punjab[1]  draws  a
distinction between “Thirdly” of Section 300  and  Exception  4  thereunder.
The following are the four steps of inquiry involved:
i.    first, whether bodily injury is present;
ii.   second, what is the nature of the injury;
 iii. third, it must be proved that there was an intention to  inflict  that
      particular injury, that is to say,  that  it  was  not  accidental  or
      unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended; and
  iv. fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described
      made up of the three elements set out above was  sufficient  to  cause
      death in the ordinary course of nature.

12.   In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another[2],  it
was held that culpable  homicide  without  the  special  characteristics  of
murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling  under  Section
304 of the Code. It was  further  held  that  there  are  three  degrees  of
culpable homicide. The first is murder under Section 300;  second,  culpable
homicide not amounting to murder falling under the  first  part  of  Section
304; and third is culpable homicide not amounting to  murder  falling  under
the second part of Section 304. To quote: -
      “12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and
      'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-
      versa.  Speaking  generally,   'culpable   homicide'   sans   'special
      characteristics of murder', is 'culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to
      murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment,  proportionate  to  the
      gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three
      degrees of culpable homicide.  The  first  is,  what  may  be  called,
      ‘culpable homicide of the first degree’. This is the greatest form  of
      culpable homicide which is defined  in  Section 300 as  'murder'.  The
      second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This
      is punishable under the first part  of  Section 304.  Then,  there  is
      'culpable homicide of the third degree’. This is the  lowest  type  of
      culpable homicide and the punishment provided for  it  is,  also,  the
      lowest among the punishments provided for the three  grades.  Culpable
      homicide of this degree is punishable under the second Part of Section
      304.”


13.   In Pappu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[3] the Court almost  exhaustively
dealt with the parameters of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code. It  was
held that the said Exception can be invoked if death is caused  (i)  without
premeditation; (ii) in a sudden fight; (iii) without the  offender’s  having
taken undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner; and  (iv)  the
fight must have been with the person killed. It was further  held  that  all
the four ingredients must be found in order to apply Exception 4. To quote:


      “13.  … The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused  (a)
      without  premeditation;  (b)  in  a  sudden  fight;  (c)  without  the
      offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
      manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the  person  killed.  To
      bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients  mentioned  in  it
      must be found. It is  to  be  noted  that  the  “fight”  occurring  in
      Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two  to
      make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time  for
      the passions to cool down and in this case, the  parties  have  worked
      themselves into a fury on account of the  verbal  altercation  in  the
      beginning. A fight is a combat between two and  more  persons  whether
      with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate  any  general
      rule as to what shall be deemed to  be  a  sudden  quarrel.  It  is  a
      question of  fact  and  whether  a  quarrel  is  sudden  or  not  must
      necessarily depend upon  the  proved  facts  of  each  case.  For  the
      application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to  show  that  there
      was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It  must  further
      be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or  acted  in
      cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as  used  in
      the provision means “unfair advantage”.

      14.   It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal  application  that
      whenever one blow is given, Section 302 IPC is  ruled  out.  It  would
      depend upon the weapon used, the size of it in some cases, force  with
      which the blow was given, part of the body on which it was  given  and
      several such relevant factors.”



14.   In Jagriti Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh[4],  it  was  held  that
the expressions “intention” and “knowledge” postulate  the  existence  of  a
positive mental attitude. It was further held that  when  and  if  there  is
intent and knowledge, then the same would be a  case  under  first  part  of
Section 304 and if it is only a case  of  knowledge  and  not  intention  to
cause murder by bodily injury, then the same would be a case of second  part
of Section 304. To quote:
      “26. Section 299 and Section 300  IPC  deal  with  the  definition  of
     “culpable homicide” and “murder”  respectively.  Section  299  defines
     “culpable homicide” as the act of causing death:

     (i)   with the intention of causing death, or
      (ii)  with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
           cause death, or
      (iii)       with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.

     A bare reading of the section makes it crystal clear  that  the  first
     and the second clauses of the section refer to  intention  apart  from
     the knowledge and the third clause refers to knowledge alone  and  not
     intention. Both the expressions “intent” and “knowledge” postulate the
     existence of a positive mental attitude which is of different degrees.
     The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. mental  attitude  towards
     the consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. If that
     is caused in any of the aforesaid three circumstances, the offence  of
     culpable homicide is said to have been committed.

      27. Section 300 IPC, however, deals with murder although there  is  no
     clear definition of murder provided in Section 300 IPC.  It  has  been
     repeatedly held by this Court that culpable homicide is the genus  and
     murder is species and that all murders are culpable homicide  but  not
     vice versa.

      28. Section 300 IPC further provides for  the  exceptions  which  will
      constitute culpable homicide not amounting to  murder  and  punishable
      under Section 304. When and if there is intent and knowledge, then the
      same would be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of
      knowledge and not the intention to cause  murder  and  bodily  injury,
      then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part  II.  The  aforesaid
      distinction between  an  act  amounting  to  murder  and  an  act  not
      amounting to murder has been brought out in the numerous decisions  of
      this Court.”



15.   In Gurmukh Singh vs.  State  of  Haryana[5]  after  scanning  all  the
previous decisions where the death was caused by a single blow,  this  Court
indicated,  though  not  exhaustively,  a  few  factors  to  be  taken  into
consideration while awarding the sentence. To quote:
     “23. These are some factors  which  are  required  to  be  taken  into
     consideration before awarding appropriate  sentence  to  the  accused.
     These factors are only illustrative in character and  not  exhaustive.
     Each case has to be seen from its special  perspective.  The  relevant
     factors are as under:

      (a)   Motive or previous enmity;
      (b)   Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;
      (c)   The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow
           or injury;
      (d)   Whether the death ensued  instantaneously  or  the  victim  died
           after several days;
      (e)   The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
      (f)   The age and general health condition of the accused;
      (g)   Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a  sudden
           fight;
      (h)   The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and
           the force with which the blow was inflicted;
      (i)   The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;
      (j)   Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the  ordinary
           course of nature to cause death but the  death  was  because  of
           shock;
      (k)   Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;
      (l)   Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;
      (m)   The conduct and behaviour of the  accused  after  the  incident.
           Whether the accused had taken the injured/the  deceased  to  the
           hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets  proper  medical
           treatment?

      These are some of the factors which can be  taken  into  consideration
      while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.

     24. The list of circumstances enumerated above  is  only  illustrative
     and not exhaustive. In our considered  view,  proper  and  appropriate
     sentence to the accused is the bounded  obligation  and  duty  of  the
     court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that  the  accused
     receives appropriate sentence, in  other  words,  sentence  should  be
     according to the gravity  of  the  offence.  These  are  some  of  the
     relevant  factors  which  are  required  to  be  kept  in  view  while
     convicting and sentencing the accused.”


16.   In the light of  the  principles  which  have  been  discussed  fairly
exhaustively, we have to analyse the factual  position  as  to
 whether  the
appellant had the intention to cause death,  or  
whether  he  only  had  the
knowledge about the injury which is likely to cause death.
We have  to  also
analyse the manner in which the injury is caused  and  the  provocation  for
the same. There is no evidence in the case that there  was  previous  enmity
between parties though PW2 has attempted for such a  version  of  the  case.
She has been disbelieved on that account because  of  contradictions  within
her own statement under Section 161. The available evidence would show  that
there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant and that  it  was  a
case of sudden fight. It has to be noted  while  appreciating  the  evidence
that Ramgulal (deceased) was called by his wife to the spot  to  settle  the
disputes once for all and that the ensuing sudden  scuffle  with  the  first
accused was in the presence of his wife. It has come out in the evidence  of
PW11-Kartikram that the injury inflicted by the  appellant  was  during  the
scuffle between the deceased and the first accused Anjoriram and that  after
the lone strike on the head of the  deceased  by  the  appellant,  both  the
deceased  and  Anjoriram  had  fallen  down  and  it  was  PW2-Heminbai  who
separated Anjoriram and Ramgulal as they  had  become  entangled  with  each
other. That only means that Ramgulal had overpowered Anjoriram or  else  the
deceased alone would have fallen down and not the first  accused  Anjoriram.
The said conduct of the deceased overpowering Anjoriram during  the  scuffle
was the immediate provocation for the appellant  to  take  the  weapon,  the
tekani which was available in the vicinity to hit the deceased. There is  no
evidence at all as to whether the appellant intended  to  hit  on  the  head
only or elsewhere on the body. The scuffling parties  being  in  motion,  it
could easily have happened that the blow fell on the  head  unintentionally.
No doubt the scuffle of the deceased was with the Anjoriram but  the  entire
fight was with the deceased  on  one  side,  and  the  appellant  and  other
accused Anjoriram on the other side. It is not required that the fight  must
be between the main accused and deceased. The fight can as well  be  between
two parties, the deceased on one side and  all  the  other  accused  on  the
other side. There is only one hit. There is nothing to show that  there  was
any cruelty involved by inflicting any other injury or by any other  conduct
on the part of the appellant so as to hold that  the  appellant  was  taking
any undue advantage of the situation or  that  he  behaved  in  a  cruel  or
unusual manner. Thus, all the four ingredients  required  for  treating  the
case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code as stated in Pappu’s  case
(supra) are satisfied in the instant case.
17.   The next inquiry is
whether the offence  falls  under  first  part  of
Section 304 or the second part.
Having regard to  the  parameters  indicated
in Gurmukh Singh’s case (supra), the offence seems to fall under the  second
part. 
There is no evidence of motive or previous enmity.  
The  incident  has
taken place on the spur of the moment. There is no  evidence  regarding  the
intention behind the fatal consequence of  the  blow.  There  was  only  one
blow. The accused is young. There was no  premeditation.  The  evolution  of
the incident would show that it was in the midst of a  sudden  fight.  
There
is no criminal background or adverse history of  the  appellant.  It  was  a
trivial quarrel among the villagers on account of a simple issue. The  fatal
blow was in the course of a scuffle between two persons. 
There has  been  no
other act of cruelty or unusual conduct  on the part of the  appellant.  The
deceased was involved in the scuffle in the presence of his wife and he  had
actually been  called  upon  by  her  to  the  spot  so  as  to  settle  the
score with the  accused  persons.
The deceased had, in the scuffle, overpowered the first accused. That  first
accused was acquitted. 
Thus, considering all these aspects, we  are  of  the
view that it is a fit case to alter the punishment of imprisonment for  life
to   imprisonment   for   a   period   of   10   years    with    fine    of
Rs.50,000/-.  Ordered  accordingly.  Since  the  deceased  has
been left with a young  widow  and  one  child,  the  amount  of  fine  thus
recovered shall be paid as compensation to the widow and the child.  
In  the
event of the  appellant  defaulting  to  pay  the  fine,  he  shall  undergo
imprisonment for a further period of two years. In case  the  appellant  has
already served the term as above, he shall be  released  forthwith,  if  not
required to be detained in connection with any other  case.  The  appeal  is
allowed as above.




                                                         ……………………….…..…………J.
                                               (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)




                                                       .………...……..……………………J.
                                                   (KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
August 27, 2013.

-----------------------
[1]    (1958) 1 SCR 1495
[2]    (1976) 4 SCC 382
[3]    (2006) 7 SCC 391
[4]    (2009) 14 SCC 771
[5]    (2009) 15 SCC 635

-----------------------
                                                                  REPORTABLE


-----------------------
                                     10


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.