Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2285 (RAJ)

Narpat Singh Rajput v. State of Rajasthan

2018-12-11

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal under Section 374(2) has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 15.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.45/2010, whereby while acquitting the accused-appellant from the charges of offences under section 341 IPC and section 4/25 of Arms, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In Default 324 IPC 03 years S.I. 1000/- 04 months' S.I. 302 IPC Life imprisonment 3000/- 01 year S.I. 2. The prosecution story emanating from the written report filed by PW1 Bharat Singh on 16.10.2010 at the Police Station, Abu Road shows that on 15.10.2010 at around 08:45 pm, while he and his father Shanker Singh were counselling accused Narpat Singh (who is son of his uncle Padam Singh) that he was indulged in aimless loitering around in the area after drinking and did not do any work, the accused Narpat Singh got agitated and while he and his father were going back to their house, the accused intercepted them on the way and attacked them with a sharp edged weapon. He inflicted injuries on the stomach of his father Shanker Singh who started profusely bleeding. When he was crying for help, the accused inflicted injuries on his right elbow. On hearing the cries, their relatives Shaitan Singh, Vikram Singh and Ummed Singh ran towards them and after their intervention, they were rescued. The accused Narpat Singh fled away from the spot. Thereafter, his father was taken to the Global Hospital, Mount Abu. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, a formal C.R. No.64/2010 was registered at Police Station, Mount Abu, District Sirohi against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 308, 341, 323 IPC. The injured Shanker Singh died while he was being treated in the hospital. Accordingly, the investigation agency added offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. in the matter. 4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 302, 341, 324 IPC and section 4 read with section 24 of Arms Act. 5. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 302 and 324 IPC IPC and the same were read over and explained to him but he denied the charges and sought for trial in the matter. 6. 5. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 302 and 324 IPC IPC and the same were read over and explained to him but he denied the charges and sought for trial in the matter. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents in its support. In defence, documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/7 were exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial who stated that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 8. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 15.04.2013 for the offences under section 302, 324 IPC. Hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a close reading of statements of the prosecution witnesses shows that the incident happened after Bharat Singh and his father Shanker Singh gave unsolicited counseling to the accused Narpat Singh who got annoyed with their suggestions. While the deceased Shanker Singh was going with his son Bharat Singh to their house, the accused in a heat of passion inflicted injuries to Shanker Singh which ultimately proved fatal to his life. He further submits that there was no intention to cause death and merely because the complainant was meddling and trying to counsel the accused about his bad habits, he got agitated and lost his control resulting into the present incident. He, therefore, prays that conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is required to be converted into section 304 Part-I of IPC as the case squarely falls under first exception to section 300 IPC. It is further prayed that since the appellant is behind the bars for last more than 08 years, therefore, he may be released on the sentence which he has already undergone. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges leveled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. PW1 Bharat Singh who is an injured eye witness clearly stated that it was the appellant who inflicted fatal blows to the deceased with an intention to kill him. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges leveled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. PW1 Bharat Singh who is an injured eye witness clearly stated that it was the appellant who inflicted fatal blows to the deceased with an intention to kill him. He further submits that statement of PW1 Bharat Singh is fully corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P-17) wherein the cause of death is shown as 'Cardio respiratory arrest due to stab injury over abdomen and its complications'. Besides this, FSL report (Ex.P/13) shows presence of blood of group 'AB' on the weapon of offence which matched with blood group of the deceased and therefore, he submits that no interference is warranted in the judgment dated 15.04.2013 passed by learned trial court convicting the accusedappellant for the offences alleged against him. In these circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the accused appellant and craves affirming the judgment passed by learned trial court. 12. We have considered the submissions made at bar and minutely gone through the record of the trial court. 13. PW1 Bharat Singh who is son of the deceased Shanker Singh stated in his statement that after counselling the accused, while they were going back home, the accused intercepted them on their way and inflicted knife blows to his father which finally proved fatal. When he tried to intervene, he was also assaulted with the knife and received an injury. Thereafter, his father was taken to Global Hospital, Mount Abu and from there, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad where during the treatment, his father died on 20.10.2010. Nothing contrary has come on record in the cross examination of this witness. PW6 Shaitan Singh, PW8 Vikram Singh and PW11 Ummed Singh did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. PW13 Dr. Tanvir Hussain who examined the injured Bharat Singh stated that Bharat Singh was having an injury on his hand by a sharp edged weapon. The injury was simple in nature (Ex.P- 2 is the injury report of Bharat Singh). PW14 Dr. Manish while working at City Hospital, Ahmadabad conducted postmortem of the deceased Shanker Singh. He stated that there were number of injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was stab wound on the abdomen and complications associated therewith. The injury was simple in nature (Ex.P- 2 is the injury report of Bharat Singh). PW14 Dr. Manish while working at City Hospital, Ahmadabad conducted postmortem of the deceased Shanker Singh. He stated that there were number of injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was stab wound on the abdomen and complications associated therewith. Ex.P-7 is the information made by the accused-appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act which was followed by for the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife. 14. Having considered the submissions made at bar and scanned the record of the trial court, we note the fact that the accused Narpat Singh was counselled by deceased Shanker Singh and his son Bharat Singh to mend his ways and reprimanded him that as he was a jobless person and unless he would not have engaged himself in some constructive work, it was difficult for them to perform his marriage. This counselling provoked the accused-appellant and he felt offended, therefore, while Shanker Singh and Bharat Singh were going home in a fit of anger, he seems to have lost his temper and inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased Shanker Singh. In the statements of the prosecution witnesses, this consistent version has come on record. We are conscious of the fact that a young person like accused Narpat Singh when made to understand to do away with his bad habits some times may retaliate and it may be felt that the persons who are counselling have insulted him and therefore, in the heat of passion such incident happens and in the present case which culminated into death of Shanker Singh who was inflicted fatal injuries. There is no evidence that the accused acted in a premeditated fashion or the incident was pre-planned by him to give fatal injuries and commit murder of the deceased. Therefore, the case is covered by the third exception to section 300 IPC, conviction of the accused-appellant under section 302 IPC is not sustainable in the present case. 15. We are gainfully supported by the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Autar v. State of U.P. reported in 2017 CRI, L.J.1097 and State of Rajasthan v. Poona Ram and others reported in 2017 CRI.L.J. 1184 . 15. We are gainfully supported by the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Autar v. State of U.P. reported in 2017 CRI, L.J.1097 and State of Rajasthan v. Poona Ram and others reported in 2017 CRI.L.J. 1184 . In the case of Ram Autar v. State of U.P. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "19. In the fact situation that developed in quick succession, we are of the comprehension that there was as such no pre-meditation or prior concert on the part of the accused persons to commit murder of Lalni. The incident happened on the spur of the moment and in an uncontrollable, embittered and agitated state of engagement, thus depriving of the accused persons of their power of self control. Though during the assaults, the accused persons were understandably aware of the likely results thereof, it is difficult to perceive that they had any common object of eliminating the deceased. This is moreso as the evidence discloses that the accused-appellants, first informant as well as the deceased did not descend from a common ancestor and that their grandfathers were real brothers. The evidence demonstrate that the accused-appellants do not have any infamous criminal background as well. The incident had occurred in the year 1982 and as on date, more than three decades have passed. 20. On a consideration of the totality of the circumstances attendant on the case, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-Part-I read with sections 147, 148, 149 IPC, as recorded by the High Court, is justified. However, in our view, having regard to the singular facts and circumstances, we are inclined to reduce the sentence for the offence under section 304-Part-I/149 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The other sentences are hereby affirmed". In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Poona Ram and others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "7. Having considered all the relevant materials and the impugned judgment, as well as the rival contentions, we are of the view that the High Court erred in applying section 304-II to the offence at hand. Section 304-I of the IPC would clearly cover such an offence where the accused persons caused indiscriminate assault and some of the injuries proved fatal. Having considered all the relevant materials and the impugned judgment, as well as the rival contentions, we are of the view that the High Court erred in applying section 304-II to the offence at hand. Section 304-I of the IPC would clearly cover such an offence where the accused persons caused indiscriminate assault and some of the injuries proved fatal. By the rashness of their act, the accused persons must be treated to be fully in know of the consequences of their acts including possible death. Hence, in the facts of the case, we set aside impugned judgment and order under appeal and convict the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under section 304-I of the IPC. The facts of the case and the ends of justice require that the accused persons should serve at least eight years of rigorous imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each and in default undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. We order accordingly. If the fine is realized, the same should be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, if any". 16. In our view, the judgment dated 15.04.2013 passed by the learned trial court is required to be interfered with only to the extent of converting the sentence from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part-I IPC while maintaining the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court. 17. We are informed that the appellant has already undergone sentence of 08 years and 02 months. We feel that interest of justice would be met if the accused is sentenced to the period already undergone by him on a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo two months imprisonment. 18. In view of whatever stated above, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant is partly allowed. The judgment dated 15.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road District Sirohi is modified to the above extent. It is ordered that upon depositing the fine, the appellant shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.