Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1972 (RAJ)

Naveen v. State of Rajasthan

2021-10-18

MADAN GOPAL VYAS, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This D.B. Cr. Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) CrPC against the judgment dated 4.11.20216 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kherwada, Distt. Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 18/2016 (25/2012), whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case are that on 5.2.2012, the complainant PW-1 Kamla submitted a written report (Ex.-P/l) at Police Station, Pahada, Udaipur mentioning therein that on 4.2.2012 her father and other family members had gone to Amjhera Mehman. In the evening at about 6.00 PM, she and her mother Shanta were at the house. In front of the house, her uncle Naveen, Pintu, Soma, Dinesh, Chaina were talking loudly and quarreling with each other. Suddenly the complainant and her mother saw that quarrel was taking place with Kanti Lal (father of the complainant) and beating was likely to be given to him. The complainant and her mother rushed there. When complainant's mother reached there, Naveen gave a knife blow aside her under the arm, due to which she fell down and blood oozed. On causing a knife blow by Naveen to Shanta, all persons fled away. When she made hue and cry, her father Kanti came there and after some time, her mother died. The complainant's father caught hold the hand of Pushpa (wife of Pratap) and for this reason, scuffle and hot talks took place. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered FIR No. 25/2012 (Ex.-P/27) and investigated the matter. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Thereafter trial was conducted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the accused appellant has restricted his prayer and submits that that Pintu caught hold the hand of Pushpa (brother-in-law's wife of the deceased) and at the spur of the moment, scuffle took place between the parties. On seeing the scuffle, the deceased Shanta suddenly came out of the house and reached in between the scuffle. On seeing the scuffle, the deceased Shanta suddenly came out of the house and reached in between the scuffle. Thus, neither there was any motive or intention of the accused appellant to cause death of the deceased nor there was any previous enmity between the parties. He further submits that it is a case of single injury and death took place on account of excessive bleeding. He further submits that PW-8 Dr. Anil Goyal in his cross examination admitted that if treatment would have been given to the deceased within half an hour or one hour, her life could have been saved. He has relied upon the judgment dated 9th September, 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Stalin Versus State represented by the Inspector of Police (Cr. Appeal No. 577 of 2020), more particularly para 11 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under: "Now, the next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC? Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC." 4. He submits that in the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court partly allowed the appeal and instead of 302 IPC, convicted the accused under Section 304 Part I IPC. It is a case of single injury, hence the case of the accused appellant would not travel beyond Section 304 Part I IPC. He further submits that there was no intention of the accused appellant to commit murder of Shanta. Since the appellant has already served more than 9 years of sentence, hence he may be released for the period already undergone by him. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He submits that the trial court after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the impugned judgment, hence no interference therewith his required by this Court. 6. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He submits that the trial court after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the impugned judgment, hence no interference therewith his required by this Court. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the medical evidence on record and the fact that it is case of single injury and scuffle took place at the spur of the moment because Pintu caught hold the hand of Pushpa (brother-in-law's wife of the deceased), there was no intention of the accused appellant to cause death of the deceased, there was no previous enmity between the parties, and in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Stalin (supra), conviction of the accused appellant from Section 302 IPC is modified to Section 304 Part I IPC. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed; the judgment dated 4.11.2016 passed by the trial court is modified and the accused appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Rest part of the judgment dated 4.11.2016 passed by the trial court is confirmed. 8. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.