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

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, IPC, - In the absence of motive to cause death and the injuries too never disclosed as that of such a fatal one to cause death and when the injuries were caused in spur of movement on sudden fight - it is not murder punishable under sec.302 but punishable under sec.304 not amounting to murder - The evidence produced against the accused does not show that the accused had any motive to cause death of the deceased or have intended to cause such bodily injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Evidence on record also does not establish that the injuries caused on the body of the deceased must in all probability cause his death or likely to cause his death. On the spur of the moment, during the heat of exchange of words accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased which caused his death. Therefore, the ingredients of the murder as defined in Section 300, IPC, have not been established against the accused. In our opinion, the accused was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, IPC, and considering the fact that the accused had no intention to either cause the death of the deceased or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death of the deceased, it would be sufficient to impose on accused a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and to impose on him a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment of six months.= MANJEET SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH … RESPONDENT = 2014 (April. Part)http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41473

  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to murder under Section 304, IPC, -  In the absence of motive to cause death and the injuries too never disclosed as that of such a fatal one to cause death and when the injuries were caused in spur of movement on sudden fight - it is not murder punishable under sec.302 but punishable under sec.304  not amounting to murder - The  evidence  produced  against the accused does not show that the accused had any motive to cause death  of the deceased or have intended to  cause  such  bodily  injuries  which  were sufficient in the ordinary course of  nature  to  cause  the  death  of  the deceased. Evidence on record also  does  not  establish  that  the  injuries caused on the body of the deceased must in all probability cause  his  death or likely to cause his death. On the spur of the moment, during the heat  of exchange of words accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased  which caused his death. Therefore, the ingredients of the  murder  as  defined  in Section 300, IPC, have not been established  against  the  accused.  In  our opinion, the accused was  guilty  of  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to murder under Section 304, IPC, and considering the  fact  that  the  accused had no intention to either cause the death of the  deceased  or  cause  such bodily injury as is likely to cause death  of  the  deceased,  it  would  be sufficient  to  impose  on  accused  a  sentence  of  seven  years  rigorous imprisonment and to impose on him a fine of Rs.5,000/-  and  in  default  of payment of fine, a further imprisonment of six months.=

 High  Court  dismissed  the
appeal and affirmed the judgment  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  dated  27th
March, 2002 in Sessions Trial No.17-S/7 of  2001  wherein  the  Trial  Court
convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and  also
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence  under  Section  302  IPC  and  in
default,  further  imprisonment  for  one  year.  The  appellant  was   also
sentenced by the Trial Court for  the  offence  under  Section  324  IPC  to
undergo imprisonment for  six  months  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.500/-,  in
default, further simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant  was  also
sentenced  for  the  offence  under  Section  27  of  Arms  Act  to  undergo
imprisonment for three months and to pay  fine  of  Rs.1000/-,  in  default,
further simple imprisonment for one month.  The  Trial  Court  ordered  that
all the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.=

 what is  the  nature
of offence that the accused has committed.  The  evidence  produced  against
the accused does not show that the accused had any motive to cause death  of
the deceased or have intended to  cause  such  bodily  injuries  which  were
sufficient in the ordinary course of  nature  to  cause  the  death  of  the
deceased. Evidence on record also  does  not  establish  that  the  injuries
caused on the body of the deceased must in all probability cause  his  death
or likely to cause his death. On the spur of the moment, during the heat  of
exchange of words accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased  which
caused his death. Therefore, the ingredients of the  murder  as  defined  in
Section 300, IPC, have not been established  against  the  accused.  In  our
opinion, the accused was  guilty  of  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to
murder under Section 304, IPC, and considering the  fact  that  the  accused
had no intention to either cause the death of the  deceased  or  cause  such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death  of  the  deceased,  it  would  be
sufficient  to  impose  on  accused  a  sentence  of  seven  years  rigorous
imprisonment and to impose on him a fine of Rs.5,000/-  and  in  default  of
payment of fine, a further imprisonment of six months.

27.     We, accordingly, set aside  the  conviction  of  the  accused  under
Section 302, IPC but hold him guilty of the offence under Section  304,  IPC
and sentence him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-
, in default of payment of fine a further imprisonment of  six  months.  The
conviction and sentences for the offence under Section 324, IPC and  Section
27 of the Arms  Act  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  are  affirmed.  All  the
sentences shall run concurrently. If the accused-Manjeet Singh has  not  yet
undergone the sentence imposed and affirmed by us, and is  not  in  custody,
he be taken into custody to serve the remainder.

2014 (April. Part)http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41473            
A.K. PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

                                                            REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1695 OF 2005

MANJEET SINGH                           … APPELLANT
                                        VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                          … RESPONDENT

                               J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

        The appellant has assailed the judgment  dated  18th  October,  2004
passed by the High Court of Himachal  Pradesh,  Shimla  in  Criminal  Appeal
No.259 of 2002. By the  impugned  judgment  the  High  Court  dismissed  the
appeal and affirmed the judgment  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  dated  27th
March, 2002 in Sessions Trial No.17-S/7 of  2001  wherein  the  Trial  Court
convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and  also
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence  under  Section  302  IPC  and  in
default,  further  imprisonment  for  one  year.  The  appellant  was   also
sentenced by the Trial Court for  the  offence  under  Section  324  IPC  to
undergo imprisonment for  six  months  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.500/-,  in
default, further simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant  was  also
sentenced  for  the  offence  under  Section  27  of  Arms  Act  to  undergo
imprisonment for three months and to pay  fine  of  Rs.1000/-,  in  default,
further simple imprisonment for one month.  The  Trial  Court  ordered  that
all the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

2.      The facts of the prosecution case as stated by Jai  Pal  (PW.5)  are
that he was carrying business of taxi in Shimla. On 31st December,  2000  at
about 9 p.m. he had gone to Hotel Apsara at Cart  Road,  Shimla  to  inquire
from Budhi Singh (PW.8), Manager of the Hotel Apsara regarding  the  booking
of his taxi by some passenger staying  in  the  Hotel.  Budhi  Singh  (PW.8)
asked Jai Pal (PW.5) to come  after  some  time.  Both  of  them  then  went
together to Hotel Basant for  celebrating  New  Year.  They  took  wine  and
dinner together and remained in the said Hotel till 12 o’clock.  Thereafter,
Budhi Singh(PW.8) returned  to  Hotel  Apsara  while  Jai  Pal  (PW.5)  came
towards Cart Road where he met Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Pawan Kumar (PW.7),  Deep
Chand and Rajnish alias Rintu who inquired about the booking of  a  room  in
the Hotel as earlier agreed upon. Jai Pal (PW.5) went to  the  Hotel  Apsara
where he did not find Budhi Singh (PW.8), Therefore,  he  went  upstairs  in
the Hall of the Hotel where  he  found  accused  Manjeet  Singh  along  with
Balraj and Surender Kumar were taking liquor. Jai Pal (PW.5)  inquired  from
the appellant-accused, Manjeet Singh about  the  Manager  of  the  Hotel  to
which the accused  was  alleged  to  have  retorted  that  he  was  not  the
Chowkidar of the Hotel so as to know and tell about  the  Manager.  Accused-
Manjeet Singh was further alleged to have started abusing Jai Pal (PW.5)  by
proclaiming that he was serving in Punjab Police. The  accused  was  further
alleged to have started beating Jai Pal (PW.5) by giving him a fist blow  on
his mouth.  Jai Pal (PW.5) ran outside. He met the above-named  Romi  Kapoor
(PW.6), Deep  Chand,  Pawan  Kumar  (PW.7)  and  Rajnish.  He  narrated  the
incident to them. Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Rajnish alias Rintu  and  Pawan  Kumar
(PW.7) went inside the Hall while Jai Pal (PW.5)  and  one  Roshan  remained
standing at the entrance of the Hotel. Rajnish  alias  Rintu  inquired  from
the accused-Manjeet Singh as to the cause of his having  given  beatings  to
Jai Pal (PW.5). The accused was alleged to have told his companions,  Balraj
and Surender Kumar to tell Rajnish and his friends about the  cause  of  the
beatings to Jai Pal (PW.5). Balraj and Surender Kumar were then  alleged  to
have abetted  and  instigated  the  accused  by  saying  “Carbine  Ka  Kamal
Dekhao”. Whereupon accused was alleged to have fired shots from his  Carbine
which hit Rajnish alias Rintu, Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Jai Pal (PW.5) and  Pawan
Kumar (PW.7). Rajnish alias Rintu sustained two shots on his  chest  and  he
fell down on the ground. The accused and Balraj were  alleged  to  have  run
away after the gun shots. Jai Pal (PW.5)  lifted  Rajnish  alias  Rintu  and
carried him to I.G.M.C. Hospital, Shimla, where he was declared dead.

3.      On  the  telephonic  message  of  one  Pradeep  Kumar,  Jagdish  Ram
(PW.25), Station House Officer,  Police  Station  Sadar  reached  the  spot.
Surender Kumar, a companion of the accused, was apprehended from the  toilet
of the Hotel. Since, the injured persons  had  already  been  taken  to  the
Hospital, Jagdish  Ram  (PW.25)  went  to  the  Hospital  and  recorded  the
statement of Jai Pal (PW.5), on the basis of which a case for  the  offences
under Section 302, 307 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC came to be  formally
registered vide F.I.R. No.1/2001.

4.      Post-mortem examination was conducted by  Dr.  V.K.  Mishra  (PW.24)
who found the following two ante-mortem bullet injuries  on  the  person  of
the deceased Rajnish alias Rintu:

           “(i) A circular wound of entry one centimeter in  diameter,  1.5
                 cm medial to right  nipple,  18  cm  below  right  shoulder
                 joint. Dry clotted blood  was  present  around  the  wound.
                 There was no blackening, tattooing, singeing, burning etc;


           (ii) A circular wound of entry 1 cm x ½ cm between the  base  of
                 1st and 2nd metatarsal bone of left foot, dorsum  with  dry
                 clotted blood present  around  the  wound.  No  blackening,
                 tattooing, singeing, burning etc. noticed over the skin.”

        In the opinion of Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW.24),  the  death  was  due  to
haemorrhagic shock as a result  of  laceration  of  lung  due  to  gun  shot
injury.
5.      On Medical Examination of Romi Kappor (PW.6), Dr.  M.P.  Singh(PW.1)
found the following injuries on the person of Romi Kapoor:
           “Local Examination


            1. A CLW 1 cm X 0.5 cm X 1 cm in  size  placed  horizontally  on
               little side of left  upper  arm  on  lower  part  of  deltoid
               muscle, red in colour  with  dark  edges  due  to  soot  with
               irregular margins which were depressed.


            2. A. CLW 1 cm   0.5  cm   1  cm  in  size  placed  horizontally
               approximately 2.5 cm lateral to first would on lateral inside
               of left upper arm  on  lower  part  of  deltoid  muscle  with
               irregular margins elevated and  margins  deliberated  red  in
               colour. Same marks were present over sweater and shirt worn.”

      As per the opinion of the doctor,  injuries  Nos.1  &  2  were  bullet
injuries and the same were dangerous to the life as per  rule  of  gun  shot
injuries. The Doctor has also issued MLC Ext. PW-2/B in respect of the  said
injuries.
6.      On the same day, Dr. M.P. Singh (PW.1)  has  also  examined  injured
Pawan Kumar and observed as under:
           “Local injuries:
A CLW   over right foot approximately 5  cm  about  tip  of  right  big  toe
placed horizontally 1 cm  0.5 cm  1 cm in size with  irregular  margins  red
in colour.


A bruise bluish in colour present 1 cm X 0.5 cm  in  size  placed  obliquely
over fifth metatars o-phalangel joint running lately on right foot.


              On the basis of x-ray report, the injury  Nos.1  and  2  were
              declared dangerous to the life and were fresh in duration and
              were caused by a blunt weapon.  The  Doctor  has  issued  MLC
              Ext.PW-1/C.”


        On the same day, Dr. M.P. Singh (PW.1)  has  also  examined  injured
Jai Pal (PW.5) and found as under:
           “Local Injuries
           1. A CLW 1.5 cm in size placed in the middle of  inner  side  of
              upper lip placed obliquely upwards and lately on  left  side,
              reddish scabbing over lip present with clotted blood.
           2. A bruise present over upper lip in the centre reddish blue in
              colour 1 cm X 0.5 cm in  size  placed  vertically.  No  other
              injury was present. Teeth were  normal.  Injuries  No.1and  2
              were simple and the duration of injuries was within 24  hours
              and were caused by blunt weapon.”

      After his examination Doctor has issued MLC Ext.PW-1/D.


7.      The accused-Manjeet Singh too was subjected to medical  examination,
which was carried out by Dr. Dinesh Rana (PW.2) on  1st   January,  2001  at
about 5.55 p.m.  The  accused  at  the  time  of  such  medical  examination
complained of pain in the fifth knuckle region of the left hand.  X-ray  was
advised. However, local examination revealed the presence of  a  red  colour
contusion and swelling on such knuckle region. The accused  also  complained
of breaking of upper incisor tooth. He was referred to  Dental  Surgeon.  On
the basis of dental opinion, such injury  was  opined  to  be  of  a  simple
nature having been caused within the probable duration of 24 hours.

8.      Balraj, a companion of the accused, was also medically  examined  by
Dr. Dinesh Rana (PW.2). Following injuries were found on his person:
           “(i) 4 cm 1 cm abrasion over the dorsum of right fore-arm;


           (ii) 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm round abrasion red  in  colour,  above  the
                 writ joint;


           (iii)        3.5 cm x 2 cm abrasion, read in colour with  linear
                 scratch in the mid. 3 cm outer  aspect  of  the  left  knee
                 joint;


           (iv)         Multiple irregular abrasions on the entire  lateral
                 aspect of the left lower leg. Red in colour, and


           (v)  Small irregular abrasion on the left side of the  forehead.
                 Red in colour.”




      All the injuries were opined to be of simple nature having been caused
with a blunt weapon within the probable duration of 24 hours.
9.      The other companion of  the  accused,  namely,  Surender  Kumar  was
medically examined by Dr. Rajneesh Sharma (PW.4) on  1st  January,  2001  at
about 4.35 a.m. One injury, that is, laceration over the fore-head 1.5 cm  x
1 cm x 0.5 cm was found. He was smelling of liquor and  there  was  slurring
of speech. The injury was simple in nature having been caused with  a  blunt
weapon with the probable duration of 6 hours.
10.     On having been produced by the  accused,  Carbine-Ex.P4  with  empty
magazine  vide  memo  Ex.PW5/C  were  taken   into   possession   by   Gulam
Mohammad(PW.26), Additional Station House Officer of Police  Station  Sadar,
who had partially investigated the case. Six live  cartridges  Ex.P1  to  P6
were also produced by the accused, which were  taken  into  possession  vide
memo Ex.PW5/D by Gulam Mohammad(PW.26).  Six  empty  cartridges  were  taken
into possession from the spot by Gulam Mohammad(PW.26) vide  memo  Ex.PW5/E.
Service belt of the accused, which was lying on the bed in the Hall  of  the
Hotel was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/F.
11.     The Ballistic Expert to whom the carbine, live and empty  cartridges
were sent for examination, vide report Ex.PW25/E has opined that  the  empty
cartridges were fired from the carbine Ex.P4.
12.     On completion of the investigation the accused along  with  his  two
companions Balraj and Surinder Kumar were sent up for trial.
        The accused was charged for the substantive offences  under  Section
302 and 307 IPC, and under Section 27  of  the  Arms  Act,  1959.   His  two
companions, Balraj and Surinder Kumar, were charged for  the  offence  under
Section 114 read with Sections 302 and 307  IPC,  for   having  abetted  and
instigated the commission of the offences under Section 302 and 307  IPC  by
the accused.

13.     The accused and his two companions pleaded not guilty to the  charge
and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined  as  many
as 26 witnesses.

14.     The learned Additional  Sessions  Judge,  on  consideration  of  the
evidence coming on the record,  by  the  impugned  judgment,  convicted  and
sentenced the accused- Manjeet Singh as mentioned above.

15.     The accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC.  The
two companions of the accused, Balraj and Surinder Kumar were  acquitted  of
all the charges framed against them.

16.     By the impugned judgment the High Court noticed the submission  made
on behalf of the appellant and on appreciation of  the  evidence  on  record
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and  sentences  imposed  by
the Trial Court.

17.     Learned counsel for the accused  has  assailed  the  conviction  and
sentence on the ground that the accused had acted in exercise of  the  right
of private defence. It was submitted that the genesis of the occurrence  was
different from what the prosecution has suggested and highlighted. In  fact,
the occurrence had taken place in the manner suggested  by  the  accused  in
his defence. The deceased and his companions had made a forcible entry  into
the Hall of the Hotel and started beating the accused and  his  two  friends
and in such course they had tried to snatch the  carbine,  which  got  fired
during the scuffle.

18.     From the record, we find  that  neither  the  accused  nor  his  two
companions in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has  stated
that the deceased and his  companions  were  the  aggressors  and  that  the
accused was acting in exercise of the right of  private  defence.  In  fact,
their case is that of total denial.  There  is  nothing  on  the  record  to
suggest that the accused or his companions received injuries  at  the  hands
of the deceased or the deceased tried to snatch the carbine of the  accused.
No evidence has been brought on record that the deceased and his  companions
entered the Hall of the Hotel with arms.
19.     Under Section 96, IPC, “Nothing is an offence which is done  in  the
exercise of the right of private defence”. Right of private defence  of  the
body and of property has been enumerated under Section 97, IPC,  subject  to
the restrictions contained in Section 99,  IPC.  As  per  the  said  section
every person has a right to defend-
               “First.  -      His own body,  and  the  body  of  any  other
                        person, against any  offence  affecting  the  human
                        body;


             Secondly   -The property, whether movable or    immovable,  of
                       himself or of any other person, against any act which
                       is an offence falling under the definition of  theft,
                       robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or  which  is
                       an attempt to  commit  theft,  robbery,  mischief  or
                       criminal trespass.”

        Section 102, IPC, deals with commencement  and  continuance  of  the
right of private defence of the body as follows:
             “Section 102. Commencement and continuance  of  the  right  of
             private defence of the body.- The right of private defence  of
             the body commences as soon as  a  reasonable  apprehension  of
             danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to  commit
             the offence though the offence may not  have  been  committed;
             and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the
             body continues.”



        The extent and limitations  of  the  right  of  private  defence  is
prescribed under Section 96 to 106, IPC. Such a right can be exercised  only
to defend the unlawful action and not to retaliate.
20.     This Court in  George Dominic Varkey v. The State of Kerala,  (1971)
3 SCC 275, has held:

             “6……Broadly stated, the right  of  private  defence  rests  on
             three ideas: first, that there must be no more harm  inflicted
             than is necessary for the purpose of defence;  secondly,  that
             there must be reasonable apprehension of danger  to  the  body
             from the attempt  or  threat  to  commit  some  offence;  and,
             thirdly,  the  right  does  not  commence  until  there  is  a
             reasonable apprehension. It is entirely a question of fact  in
             the circumstances of a case  as  to  whether  there  has  been
             excess of private defence within the meaning of the 4th clause
             of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, that  no  more
             harm is  inflicted  than  is  necessary  for  the  purpose  of
             defence. No one can be expected to find any pattern of conduct
             to meet a particular case. Circumstances must  show  that  the
             court can find that there was apprehension to life or property
             or  of  grievous  hurt.  If  it  is  found  that   there   was
             apprehension to life or property or of grievous hurt the right
             of private defence is  in  operation.  The  person  exercising
             right of private defence is entitled to stay and overcome  the
             threat.”

21.     In  Moti Singh v. State of  Maharashtra,  (2002)  9  SCC  494,  this
Court held that dimension of the injuries may not  be  serious,  it  is  the
situs of  the  injuries  that  would  indicate  whether  the  accused  could
reasonably entertain the apprehension that at least  grievous  injuries/hurt
would be caused to him by the assaulters unless aggression is thwarted.
22.     In the present case during the course of  cross-examination  of  the
prosecution witnesses, especially Jai Pal(PW.5), Romi Kapoor  (PW.6),  Pawan
Kumar (PW.7), Satish Kumar (PW.9) and Charanjeet Singh  (PW.12)  an  attempt
has been made on behalf of the  accused  to  set  up  the  case  of  private
defence.
23.     In  Rajender Singh and others v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4  SCC  298,
dealing with the similar proposition this Court held as follows:
             “Non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused,
             ipso facto, cannot be held to  be  fatal  to  the  prosecution
             case. Ordinarily, the prosecution is not  obliged  to  explain
             each and every injury on  the  person  of  the  deceased  even
             though such injuries might have been caused during the  course
             of the occurrence and they are minor in nature. But where  the
             injuries are grievous, non-explanation of such injuries  would
             attract the Court to look at the prosecution case with  little
             suspicion on the ground that the  prosecution  has  suppressed
             the true version of the incident.”



24.     Evidence of eye-witnesses, especially of the  injured,  namely,  Jai
Pal  (PW.5),  Romi  Kapoor  (PW.6)  and  Pawan  Kumar  (PW.7),   which   are
trustworthy, when  read  together,  we  find  that  non-explanation  of  the
injuries on the person of the accused and his two companions cannot be  held
to be fatal to the prosecution case.
25.     Satish Kumar (PW.9), an independent witness, who  was  also  staying
and sleeping in the Hall where the occurrence had  taken  place,  though  he
was declared hostile, has admitted the correctness of the prosecution  story
in the following terms:
             “It is correct that when I woke up on hearing the noise, I saw
             a boy coming in the hall and inquiring about the Manager  from
             the accused Manjit. It is correct that one of  the  associates
             of accused Manjit, i.e., one driver stated  that  we  are  not
             Chowkidar, so you tell the Manager. It is  correct  that  upon
             this accused persons started beating that boy  and  thereafter
             other associates of that boy also came in  the  hall  of  that
             hotel after about 5-7 minutes.”

        In answer to Court question, PW.9 has staed:
             “The driver who was with accused Manjit was heavily drunk  and
             was also abusing the other party and Manjit accused  tried  to
             prevail upon him  and  thereafter  said  driver  attempted  to
             assault those 4-5 persons present in the hall  and  thereafter
             free fighting between the parties.”

        The above statement of Satish Kumar  (PW.9)  lends  support  to  the
prosecution story to show that it was the accused who was the aggressor  and
that the accused had not acted in private defence.
26.     The question now requires to determine is as to what is  the  nature
of offence that the accused has committed.  The  evidence  produced  against
the accused does not show that the accused had any motive to cause death  of
the deceased or have intended to  cause  such  bodily  injuries  which  were
sufficient in the ordinary course of  nature  to  cause  the  death  of  the
deceased. Evidence on record also  does  not  establish  that  the  injuries
caused on the body of the deceased must in all probability cause  his  death
or likely to cause his death. On the spur of the moment, during the heat  of
exchange of words accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased  which
caused his death. Therefore, the ingredients of the  murder  as  defined  in
Section 300, IPC, have not been established  against  the  accused.  In  our
opinion, the accused was  guilty  of  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to
murder under Section 304, IPC, and considering the  fact  that  the  accused
had no intention to either cause the death of the  deceased  or  cause  such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death  of  the  deceased,  it  would  be
sufficient  to  impose  on  accused  a  sentence  of  seven  years  rigorous
imprisonment and to impose on him a fine of Rs.5,000/-  and  in  default  of
payment of fine, a further imprisonment of six months.

27.     We, accordingly, set aside  the  conviction  of  the  accused  under
Section 302, IPC but hold him guilty of the offence under Section  304,  IPC
and sentence him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-
, in default of payment of fine a further imprisonment of  six  months.  The
conviction and sentences for the offence under Section 324, IPC and  Section
27 of the Arms  Act  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  are  affirmed.  All  the
sentences shall run concurrently. If the accused-Manjeet Singh has  not  yet
undergone the sentence imposed and affirmed by us, and is  not  in  custody,
he be taken into custody to serve the remainder.

28.     The appeal stands  disposed  of  with  the  above  observations  and
directions.

                                                      ……………………………………………………J.
                                       (A.K. PATNAIK)




                                                     …….……….……………………………………J.
NEW DELHI,                          (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
APRIL 25, 2014.



ITEM NO.1B               COURT NO.10             SECTION IIB
(For Judgment)

            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1695 OF 2005

MANJEET SINGH                                     Appellant (s)
                 VERSUS
STATE OF H.P.                                     Respondent(s)

Date: 25/04/2014  This Appeal was called on for pronouncement of
    judgment today.
CORAM :
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

For Appellant(s)        Mr. Prashant Chaudhary,Adv.

For Respondent(s)    Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.


         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu  Jyoti  Mukhopadhaya  pronounced  the
   reportable judgment of the Bench comprising  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  A.K.
   Patnaik and His Lordship.
                The conviction of the accused under Section 302, IPC is set
   aside but he is held guilty of the offence under Section 304, IPC and is
   sentenced to undergo seven  years  rigorous  imprisonment  and  fine  of
   Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine a further imprisonment of  six
   months. The conviction and sentences for the offence under Section  324,
   IPC and Section 27 of the  Arms  Act  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  are
   affirmed. All the sentences shall  run  concurrently.  If  the  accused-
   Manjeet Singh has not yet undergone the sentence  imposed  and  affirmed
   and is not in custody, he be taken into custody to serve the remainder.
                The appeal stands  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed
   reportable judgment.


              [RAJNI MUKHI]                       [USHA SHARMA]
               SR. P.A.                   COURT MASTER

        (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

No comments:

Post a Comment

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