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

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Sec.302 r/w 149 or sec.304 part 1 r/w 149 or sec.304 part 2 r/w sec.149 of I.P.C. - Land disputes - civil proceedings pending - one party raising fencing and other dismantling - sudden fight sparked - resulted in death of one person and injuries to other victim - Lower court sentenced under sec.302 r/w sec.149 I.P.C.- High court modified it and sentenced them under sec.304 part 2 r/w sec.149 of I.P.C. for 5 years - Apex court convicted them under sec. 304 part 1 r/w sec.149 for 7 years and allow the appeals of state partly = Nanak Ram .. Appellant(s) versus State of Rajasthan .. Respondent(s) =2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41258

Sec.302 r/w 149 or sec.304 part 1 r/w 149 or sec.304 part 2 r/w sec.149 of I.P.C. - Land disputes - civil proceedings pending - one party raising fencing and other dismantling - sudden fight sparked - resulted in death of one person and injuries to other victim - Lower court sentenced under sec.302 r/w sec.149 I.P.C.- High court modified it and sentenced them under sec.304 part 2 r/w sec.149 of I.P.C. for 5 years - Apex court convicted them under sec. 304 part 1 r/w sec.149 for 7 years and allow the appeals of state partly =

Thus the evidence shows that  the  accused  party
               was desirous to get the subject land to themselves  and  were
               taking legal steps to achieve it.  
On coming to know  of  the
               fencing put by Shivji Ram and his brothers they were  annoyed
               and went there  to  remove  the  fencing.   
While  they  were
               dismantling the fencing, Shivji Ram  and  his  brothers  came
               there and objected to it by saying that  they  have  obtained
               Patta and a sudden quarrel erupted.




           17.       A fight suddenly takes place for which both parties are
               more or less to be blamed and it is a combat whether with  or
               without weapons.  
It may be that one of them starts  it,  but
               if the other had not aggravated it by  his  own  conduct,  it
               would not have taken  the  serious  turn  it  did.   
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.  
Out of the 9 injuries,  only  injury  no.1
               was held to be of grievous nature, which  was  sufficient  in
               the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased.
                The  assaults  were  made  at  random.   
Even  the  previous
               altercations were  verbal  and  not  physical.   The  earlier
               disputes  over  land  do  not  appear  to  have  assumed  the
               characteristics of physical combat.  
This goes to  show  that
               in the heat of passion upon  a  sudden  quarrel  the  accused
               persons had caused injuries on the deceased.  That  being  so
               the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is applicable.   The  fact
               situation bears great similarity to that in  Ghapoo  Yadav  &
               Ors.  vs.  State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528.

      18.           Looking at the  nature  of  injuries  sustained  by  the
              deceased  and  the  circumstances  as  enumerated  above  the
              conclusion is irresistible that the death was caused  by  the
              acts of the accused done with the intention of  causing  such
              bodily injury as is likely to cause death and  therefore  the
              offence would squarely come within the first part of  Section
              304 IPC and the appellants would be liable  to  be  convicted
              for   the   said   offence.    The    conviction    of    the
              appellants/accused  under  Section  304  Part  II  read  with
              Section 149 IPC by the High Court is liable to be set aside.

      19.            We are of the considered view  that  imposition  of  7
              years rigorous imprisonment on each of the appellants for  the
              conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC would meet the ends of
              justice.   We  sustain  the  other  conviction  and  sentences
              imposed on the appellants.  We are also of the view  that  the
              appellants are not entitled for release on probation.

      20.               In the result Criminal Appeal No.1990 of 2010,  1991
              of 2010 and 1992 of 2010 preferred by the State  of  Rajasthan
              against the accused persons Nanak Ram, Mohan Ram and Surja Ram
              are partly allowed and their conviction for the offence  under
              Section 304 Part II IPC read with  Section  149  IPC  and  the
              sentences of 5 years rigorous imprisonment each are set  aside
              and instead they are convicted for the offence  under  Section
              304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and  sentenced to undergo
              seven years rigorous imprisonment each.  All other convictions
              and  sentences  imposed  on  them  by  the  High   Court   are
              maintained. Criminal Appeal No.1985 of 2010 and  342  of  2011
              are dismissed.


2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41258
T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN
                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1985 OF 2010
                                    With
       Crl.A.No.1990/2010, Crl.A.No.1991/2010, Crl.A.No.1992/2010 and
                              Crl.A.No.342/2011



     Nanak Ram                         ..    Appellant(s)

                                   versus

     State of Rajasthan                ..       Respondent(s)







                               J U D G M E N T




     C. NAGAPPAN, J.




            1.      This judgment shall dispose of three appeals in Criminal
               appeal  Nos.1985  of  2010  filed  by  the  appellant   Nanak
               Ram/Accused and Criminal  Appeal  No.342  of  2011  filed  by
               appellants/Accused Mohan Ram  and  Surja  Ram  against  their
               conviction and sentence, and Criminal  Appeal  Nos.  1991  of
               2010,  1990 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.1992 of 2010 filed
               by the State of Rajasthan for the enhancement of the sentence
               against the above mentioned  accused, respectively.




            2.      The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :  PW
               7 Shera Ram is the younger brother of deceased Shivji Ram and
               they had  obtained  land  from  Gram  Panchayat  towards  the
               western side  of the village and obtained Pattas for the said
               land. Accused Bhera  Ram  and  accused  Chuna  Ram  are  real
               brothers while accused Surja Ram and accused  Mohan  Ram  are
               sons of accused Sadula Ram.  Accused Bhera Ram and Sadula Ram
               told Shivji Ram and Shera Ram that they will not  allow  them
               to take the land and will snatch it  from  them.  Two  months
               prior to occurrence Shivji Ram and Shera Ram erected  fencing
               around their land whereupon the accused Bhera Ram  and  other
               accused  were  seriously  annoyed  over  the  same.  On   the
               occurrence day i.e. on  29.5.1983 at 10.30  a.m.  Shivji  Ram
               and both his younger brothers were repairing/re-erecting  the
               fencing in their land, accused persons Bhera Ram, Sadula  Ram
               and his sons Mohan Ram and Surja Ram, Gordhan  Ram, Nanak Ram
               and Chuna Ram, all duly armed entered into Bara  from   south
               side and started  dismantling the fence.  Shivji Ram and  his
               brothers  questioned  the  same  by  saying  that  they  have
               obtained  Patta from the Panchayat.  Thereupon Bhera Ram  and
               Surja Ram simultaneously inflicted Barchhi blow on  the  head
               of Shivji Ram, as a result of which he fell down and all  the
               accused  attacked  him  with  their   weapons.    Shera   Ram
               intervened and accused Mohan Ram inflicted Barchhi blow which
               landed on the left side of his head  and  accused  Chuna  Ram
               inflicted the jei blow  on  his  right  leg.  Then  all   the
               accused  started beating  whereupon  his  sister  Dhuri  came
               running and fell upon Shera Ram in order to protect him.   PW
               11 Balu Ram and PW 2  Mangi  Lal  who  were  present  at  the
               occurrence place were threatened by the accused and they  got
               frieghtened and saw the occurrence standing by  the  side  of
               the road. After that all the accused went  away.  Shivji  Ram
               died on the spot.

            3.      Some unknown person gave a telephonic information  about
               the occurrence to the Police Station Nokha on  29.5.1983  and
               after making Exh.P-54 entry in the Roznamcha PW 13 Attar  Ali
               Khan went to the occurrence place and found Shivji Ram  lying
               dead  and Shera Ram with  injuries  and  he  recorded  Exh.P9
               statement of Shera Ram,  sent  him   to  Nokha  Hospital  for
               treatment.  He  forwarded  Exh.P9  statement  to  the  Police
               Station for registering the case and Exh. P55 FIR came to  be
               registered.  He conducted inquest on the body of  Shivji  Ram
               and prepared Exh.P5 ‘inquest  report’.  He  prepared   Exh.P3
               site plan and Exh.P45  site inspection note.  He seized blood
               stained earth and ordinary earth  under  Exh.  P33  and  also
               seized jeis used by the accused Chuna Ram, Nanak Ram from the
               occurrence place and the blood stained wooden jei under  Exh.
               P34.  He also seized the footwear of Shivji Ram viz.  Exh.P35
               and sent the body for post mortem.




            4.      Dr. Moti Lal Mishra (PW 9) conducted the autopsy on  the
               body of Shivji Ram and found the following 9 injuries:

               i) An incised wound of 6-½” x ½” and deep upto  brain on  the
                  head,

              ii) a punctured wound of 1 x ½ x ½ cm  on the left knee  joint
                  deep to the bone;

             iii) multiple contusion of 1 cm each  incised on the left elbow
                  joint;

              iv) an abrasion 1 x ½ cm on the left ring finger dorsally;

               v) a contusion of 4 x 2 cm on the lower half of the left  leg
                  anteriorly;

              vi) swelling 2 x 2 cm on the left leg near the 5th injury;

             vii) a contusion of 1 x 1 cm on the right thigh

            viii) an abrasion 3 x 1 cm on the  right  knee  joint  near  the
                  ankle joint; and

              ix) an abrasion on the right middle finger dorsally.

              He issued Exh. P 33 Post Mortem report by expressing  opinion
              that the death has occurred due to  destruction  of  all  the
              elements of  brain and shock due to excessive  bleeding.

            5.      PW 9 Dr. Moti Lal Mishra examined Shera Ram in the Nokha
               hospital and found the following 11 injuries on him:

              i) One crushed wound of 4 x 3 cm bone deep on  lower  half  of
                 the left leg interiorly;

             ii) One crushed wound of 1cm x .5x.5 cm on middle  1/3  of  the
                 right leg laterally;

            iii) Contusion of 15 x 1.5 cm on the  lower  portion  of  glutal
                 region;

             iv) An abrasion 3 x ½ cm on the right scapula;

              v) One crushed wound of 6 x 1 x 1.5 cm on the left side of the
                 head, 7 cm above the left ear,

             vi) An abrasion 1cm x 1 cm on the back side of the head;

            vii) Swelling 4 x 3 cm on the right palm;

           viii) An abrasion 1 x ½ cm on the left thumb laterally;

             ix) A contusion of 6 x 1 cm on the middle  half  of  the  right
                 thigh medially;

              x) A contusion of 3 x 1 cm on the  right thigh 2 cm above  the
                 ninth injury and

             xi) Contusion two in number, one of 4 x 1 cm and another of 3 x
                 1 cm on the upper half of the right glutal.

               He opined that all the above injuries were simple  in  nature
               and issued Exh. P 32 Injury Report.




            6.      After completing investigation challan was filed in  the
               Court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Nokha against all the
               accused persons. Accused Nanak Ram was absconding. The  other
               accused persons namely Bhera Ram,   Sadula  Ram,  Chuna  Ram,
               Surja Ram, Mohan Ram and Gordhan Ram were tried  in  Sessions
               Case No.63 of1983 for the alleged offences under Section 302,
               307, 323 and 324 all read with Section 149 IPC and  also  the
               offence under Section  147  and  148  IPC.   The  prosecution
               examined 13 witnesses and tendered in evidence  59 documents.
                The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Bhera  Ram  and
               Surja Ram for  the  offences  under  Section  302  read  with
               section  149  IPC  and  sentenced  them   each   to   undergo
               imprisonment for life.  He  also  convicted  accused  persons
               Sadula Ram, Mohan Ram and Gordhan Ram for the offences  under
               Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC  and  sentenced
               them  each  to  undergo  five  years  rigorous  imprisonment.
               Besides he convicted accused persons namely Surja Ram,  Bhera
               Ram, Gordhan Ram and Mohan Ram for the offence under  Section
               148 IPC  and  sentenced  them  each  to  undergo  six  months
               rigorous imprisonment  He also convicted Sadula Ram  for  the
               offence under Section 147 IPC and sentenced him to undergo  3
               months rigorous  imprisonment.    In  addition  he  convicted
               accused persons Surja Ram, Bhera Ram, Mohan Ram,  Sadula  Ram
               and Gordhan Ram for the offence under Sections  323  and  324
               read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to  undergo
               6 months rigorous imprisonment and directed all the sentences
               to run concurrently.  However, he acquitted accused Chuna Ram
               of the charges.




            7.      All the five  convicted accused persons preferred appeal
               in Appeal No.428 of  1984  on  the  file  of  High  Court  of
               Judicature  of  Rajasthan,  at  Jodhpur,  challenging   their
               conviction and sentences.  The State of Rajasthan  challenged
               the complete acquittal of Chuna  Ram  and  the  acquittal  of
               accused persons Sadula Ram, Mohan Ram and Gordhan Ram for the
               offences under Section 302 read with  149  IPC  ,  in  Appeal
               No.106 of 1985.  During the  pendency  of  the  appeals  four
               accused persons namely Sadula Ram, Gordhan Ram, Bhera Ram and
               Chuna Ram died, with the result the appeal preferred  against
               them in Appeal No. 106 of 1985  abated and  the  said  appeal
               continued only as against the accused Mohan  Ram.  Like  wise
               Appeal No.428 of 1984 preferred by the accused persons  Bhera
               Ram, Sadula  Ram,  Gordhan  Ram  also  stood  abated  and  it
               continued on behalf of accused Surja Ram and Mohan Ram  only.






            8.      The High Court of Rajasthan partly allowed the appeal in
               Appeal No.428 of 1984 filed  by  the  accused  Surja  Ram  by
               setting aside his conviction for the  offence  under  Section
               302 read with Section 149 IPC and instead convicted him under
               Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC  and  sentenced
               him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment  and  the  other
               conviction and sentences imposed on him were maintained.   At
               the same time it dismissed the appeal  in  Appeal  No.428  of
               1984 preferred  by  accused  Mohan  Ram,  by  confirming  the
               conviction and sentence imposed on him. The High  Court  also
               dismissed the Appeal No.106 of 1985 preferred by the State of
               Rajasthan against accused Mohan Ram.




            9.       The accused Nanak Ram  on being apprehended  was  tried
               in Sessions Case No.24  of  1985  and  the  learned  Sessions
               Judge, Bikaner convicted him for the  offence  under  Section
               302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced  him  to  undergo
               life imprisonment.  He also convicted  him  for  the  offence
               under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months
               rigorous imprisonment and  further  convicted  him   for  the
               offence under Section 324  read  with  Section  149  IPC  and
               sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous  imprisonment  and
               in addition he convicted him for the  offence  under  Section
               323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced  him  to  undergo
               three months rigorous imprisonment and further  he  convicted
               him for the offence under Section 447 IPC and  sentenced  him
               to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and directed  all
               sentences to run concurrently.   Challenging  the  conviction
               and  sentence Nanak Ram preferred appeal in  Criminal  Appeal
               No.314 of 1990 on the file of High  Court  of  Judicature  at
               Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the High Court  partly  allowed  the
               appeal by setting aside the  conviction   under  Section  302
               read with Section 149  IPC  and  instead  convicted  him  for
               offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section  149  IPC
               and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment
               and  maintained  all  the  other  convictions  and  sentences
               imposed by the Sessions Court.




           10.      Challenging their convictions and sentences  imposed  by
               the High Court on them accused Nanak Ram, Mohan Ram and Surja
               Ram preferred Criminal Appeal referred to above and the State
               of Rajasthan also filed appeals  against  the  above  accused
               seeking for enhancement of the  sentences  imposed  on  them.
               All these appeals were heard together and are being  disposed
               of by this common judgment.




           11.      Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing  for
               the appellants contended that the occurrence took place about
               30 years ago and accused persons went to the occurrence place
               only to remove the  fence  put  up  by  Shivji  Ram  and  his
               brothers and when it was resisted a free fight followed which
               was accidental and there was no intention to kill  and   only
               one blow on the head of Shivji Ram was fatal  and  the  other
               injuries were only minor injuries, and the Courts below  have
               failed to appreciate that there are material improvements and
               infirmities in the prosecution case and the presence  of  eye
               witnesses is highly doubtful and the conviction of appellants
               is wholly unwarranted and  liable  to  be  set  aside.    The
               alternative plea of the learned counsel  for  the  appellants
               was that the appellants have undergone three years  of  their
               sentence  and they be granted the benefit of probation  under
               the provision of Section 360 of Code  of  Criminal  Procedure
               as well as under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
               1958, and in support of  the  submission  he  relied  on  the
               decision of this Court in State  of  Karnataka  vs.  Muddappa
               (1999) 5 SCC  732  and  Eliamma  and  Another  vs.  State  of
               Karnataka (2009) 11 SCC 42.




           12.     Per contra Ms. Sonia Mathur,  learned  counsel  appearing
               for the State of Rajasthan strenuously contended that  Shivji
               Ram and his brothers are the Patta holders  of the  land  and
               lease deeds have been executed  by  the  Panchayat  in  their
               favour and the accused persons having failed in  their  legal
               proceedings had decided  to  attack  the  brothers  and  take
               forcible possession of the land and in pursuance of the  said
               common object  all  the  seven  accused  persons  duly  armed
               forcibly entered the land and inflicted  injuries  on  Shivji
               Ram with barchhi and jei resulting in instantaneous death and
               also inflicted injuries on his younger brother Shera Ram  and
               the alteration made by the High Court on the conviction  from
               Section 302 IPC read  with  Section  149  IPC  to  one  under
               Section 304  Part  II  IPC  read  with  Section  149  IPC  is
               erroneous and  legally  unsustainable.   In  support  of  her
               submissions  she relied on the decisions  of  this  Court  in
               Mahesh Balmiki alias Munna vs. State of M.P. (2000)1 SCC  319
               and Arun Nivalaji More vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC
               613.

           13.      The prosecution has examined PW 7 Shera Ram, PW 2, Mandi
               Lal, PW6 Dhuri and PW11 Balu  Ram  as  having  witnessed  the
               occurrence. PW7 Shera Ram and PW 11 Balu  Ram are the younger
               brothers of deceased  Shivji  Ram  and  PW6  Dhuri  is  their
               sister.  PW  7  Shera  Ram   was  also  injured  during   the
               occurrence and according to him on the occurrence day  namely
               on 29.5.1983 at 10.30 a.m. Shivji Ram and both  his  brothers
               were repairing/re-erecting the fencing in their   Patta  Land
               and accused persons Bhera Ram, Sadula Ram and his sons  Mohan
               Ram and Surja Ram, Gordhan  Ram,  Nanak  Ram  and  Chuna  Ram
               armed with weapons entered into  Bara  from  south  side  and
               started dismantling the fence and they questioned the same by
               saying that they have obtained Patta from  Panchayat  and  at
               that time Bhera Ram and Surja Ram inflicted Barchhi  blow  on
               the head of Shivji Ram as a result of which he fell down  and
               all the accused attacked him with their weapons and  when  he
               intervened accused Mohan Ram inflicted barchhi  blow  on  the
               left side of his head and accused  Chuna  Ram  inflicted  jei
               blow on his right leg and other accused also started  beating
               him whereupon his sister Dhuri came running and fell upon him
               in  order  to  protect  him  and  the  accused  persons  also
               threatened PW 11  Balu  Ram  and  PW2  Mangi  Lal  and  being
               frightened they stood by the side  of  the road and  saw  the
               occurrence and  Shivji Ram died on the spot.  PW7  Shera  Ram
               sustained as many as 11 injuries on his person as a result of
               the attack made by all the accused on  him  at  the  time  of
               occurrence. PW 11 Balu Ram was involved in the fencing of the
               land  along  with  his  brothers  and  his  presence  in  the
               occurrence place cannot doubted.  PW 2 Mangi Lal happened  to
               be with Shivji Ram in his  land  and  he  has  witnessed  the
               occurrence.  He is an independent  witness.   On  seeing  the
               attack made by the accused on her brothers PW  6  Dhuri  came
               running and tried to protect Shera Ram by falling  upon  him.
               The testimonies of PW2 Mangi Lal, PW6 Dhuri,  PW11  Balu  Ram
               are  natural  cogent  and   in   all   material   particulars
               corroborated the testimony of PW7 Shera Ram.  Accepting their
               testimonies it is clear that during the  occurrence  all  the
               seven accused as members of unlawful assembly have  inflicted
               injuries with their weapons on deceased Shivji Ram and  PW  7
               Shera Ram.




           14.      Shivji Ram died of homicidal violence is established  by
               the medical evidence adduced in the case.  PW9 Dr.  Moti  Lal
               Mishra conducted autopsy on the body of Shivji Ram and  found
               on the head an incised wound of 6½” x ½” deep upto brain  and
               on internal examination the destruction of  the  elements  of
               the brain.  He also found eight other injuries on  the  other
               parts of the body.  He issued Exh. P33 post mortem report and
               expressed  opinion  that  the  death  has  occurred  due   to
               destruction of the  elements  of  brain  and  shock  due   to
               excessive bleeding.  In the oral testimony PW9 Dr.  Moti  Lal
               Mishra has categorically stated that injury No.1 found on the
               head was itself sufficient to cause death.  There is no doubt
               that  Shivji  Ram  died  of  injuries  sustained  during  the
               occurrence.  It is further relevant to note that PW9 Dr. Moti
               Lal Mishra examined  PW7  Shera  Ram  immediately  after  the
               occurrence in Nokha hospital and found 11  injuries  on  him.
               Ex.P.32 is the injury report issued  by  him  mentioning  the
               injuries.  According to him all the injuries  are  simple  in
               nature.




           15.      Telephonic information about the occurrence was given to
               Nokha Police Station by  some  unknown  person  on  29.5.1983
               itself and PW13 Attar Ali Khan after making Exh.P54 entry  in
               the Roznamcha, immediately went to the occurrence  place  and
               found Shivji Ram lying dead and Shera Ram with injuries.   He
               recorded Exh.P9 statement of Shera Ram and sent him to  Nokha
               hospital for  treatment and forwarded the  statement  to  the
               Police Station for registering the case Exh.P55 is the  First
               Information Report. He also seized jeis used by  the  accused
               from the occurrence place under Exh.P34 Mazhar.   There is no
               delay in registering  case  and  there  is  no  flaw  in  the
               investigation.




           16.      It is true that the accused party had land dispute  with
               the  victim  party.   The  Collector  ordered  conversion  of
               subject land into abadi  and  on  the  applications  made  by
               Shivji Ram and  his  two  brothers,  Pattas  were  issued  as
               evident from P12, P16, P17, P20, P21 and P24.  Accused  Bhera
               Ram preferred appeals against the grant of Patta to Panchayat
               Samiti at the first instance and they came  to  be  dismissed
               and the revision preferred before the Collector was  pending.
               PW8 Sarpanch Dhura Ram and PW5 record keeper Hanuman Das have
               stated so.  Thus the evidence shows that  the  accused  party
               was desirous to get the subject land to themselves  and  were
               taking legal steps to achieve it.  On coming to know  of  the
               fencing put by Shivji Ram and his brothers they were  annoyed
               and went there  to  remove  the  fencing.   While  they  were
               dismantling the fencing, Shivji Ram  and  his  brothers  came
               there and objected to it by saying that  they  have  obtained
               Patta and a sudden quarrel erupted.




           17.       A fight suddenly takes place for which both parties are
               more or less to be blamed and it is a combat whether with  or
               without weapons.  It may be that one of them starts  it,  but
               if the other had not aggravated it by  his  own  conduct,  it
               would not have taken  the  serious  turn  it  did.   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.  Out of the 9 injuries,  only  injury  no.1
               was held to be of grievous nature, which  was  sufficient  in
               the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased.
                The  assaults  were  made  at  random.   Even  the  previous
               altercations were  verbal  and  not  physical.   The  earlier
               disputes  over  land  do  not  appear  to  have  assumed  the
               characteristics of physical combat.  This goes to  show  that
               in the heat of passion upon  a  sudden  quarrel  the  accused
               persons had caused injuries on the deceased.  That  being  so
               the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is applicable.   The  fact
               situation bears great similarity to that in  Ghapoo  Yadav  &
               Ors.  vs.  State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528.

      18.           Looking at the  nature  of  injuries  sustained  by  the
              deceased  and  the  circumstances  as  enumerated  above  the
              conclusion is irresistible that the death was caused  by  the
              acts of the accused done with the intention of  causing  such
              bodily injury as is likely to cause death and  therefore  the
              offence would squarely come within the first part of  Section
              304 IPC and the appellants would be liable  to  be  convicted
              for   the   said   offence.    The    conviction    of    the
              appellants/accused  under  Section  304  Part  II  read  with
              Section 149 IPC by the High Court is liable to be set aside.

      19.            We are of the considered view  that  imposition  of  7
              years rigorous imprisonment on each of the appellants for  the
              conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC would meet the ends of
              justice.   We  sustain  the  other  conviction  and  sentences
              imposed on the appellants.  We are also of the view  that  the
              appellants are not entitled for release on probation.

      20.               In the result Criminal Appeal No.1990 of 2010,  1991
              of 2010 and 1992 of 2010 preferred by the State  of  Rajasthan
              against the accused persons Nanak Ram, Mohan Ram and Surja Ram
              are partly allowed and their conviction for the offence  under
              Section 304 Part II IPC read with  Section  149  IPC  and  the
              sentences of 5 years rigorous imprisonment each are set  aside
              and instead they are convicted for the offence  under  Section
              304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and  sentenced to undergo
              seven years rigorous imprisonment each.  All other convictions
              and  sentences  imposed  on  them  by  the  High   Court   are
              maintained. Criminal Appeal No.1985 of 2010 and  342  of  2011
              are dismissed.





                                                              …………………………….J.
                                             (T.S. Thakur)






                                                               ……………………………J.
                                             (C. Nagappan)
     New Delhi;
     February 26, 2014.


No comments:

Post a Comment

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