It is crystal clear that the High Court has not considered the evidence,
neither the nature of injuries nor method and manner in which they were inflicted.
The High Court has also not considered the aspect whether the accused intended to
inflict injuries so as to cause the death. Even the circumstances to take the case out
of the purview of section 302 have also not been discussed by the High Court.
Simpliciter, it has been observed that a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence has
been made but we find from the judgment that no such exercise has been done.
Mere statement in the judgment to that effect is not enough. Evidence is not only
required to be mentioned in the judgment but its evidentiary value has to be
assessed carefully. No such exercise has been made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINA APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1246 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. [Crl.] No.1621 of 2014)
State of Rajasthan … Appellant
Vs.
Prakash @ Gajendra … Respondent
Dated;September 23, 2015.
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. On being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.5.2013 passed by
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, the appeal has been
preferred by the State of Rajasthan. The trial court has convicted the respondent for
commission of an offence under section 302 and section 458 IPC and sentenced
to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and RI for seven years and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- respectively for the aforesaid offences. While maintaining conviction
and sentence under section 458 IPC, the High Court has altered conviction from
section 302 to section 304 Part II and sentenced him to the period already
undergone, i.e. 8 years and 7 months.
4. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.10.2004 Prakash Salvi inflicted
injuries on deceased Mahendra by knife. On raising a hue and cry, Naresh, Adesh,
Mukesh and Tej Singh Balla reached the spot and took Mahendra to hospital. On
27.10.2004, the deceased succumbed to his injuries and the offence was converted
to section 302/458 IPC from sections 307/324/458 IPC.
5. The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed that death was not
caused immediately. The incident took place on 22.10.2004 whereas death took
place on 27.10.2004. The dying declaration was recorded by the Police and not by
the Magistrate and a careful scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that it is a case
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As such, the conviction has been
altered from section 302 to section 304 Part II IPC.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The only discussion
with respect to conversion of the offence from section 302 to section 304 Part II
IPC is at page 9 of the impugned judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment is
quoted below :-
“Further, we have examined the factual aspect of the matter and
found that the injuries upon the body of the deceased were
although serious in nature but death was not immediately
caused because occurrence took place on 22.10.2004 and
injured died on 27.10.2004 during which statement of the
deceased was recorded by the police and not by the Magistrate.
Therefore, our opinion is that the prosecution has proved its
case with regard to the occurrence but careful scrutiny of the
entire evidence makes it clear that it is a case of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, convicting of the
appellant for offence under section 302, I.P.C. is not sustainable
in the eye of law. The case against the accused-appellant does
not travel beyond offence under Section 304 Pt.-II, I.P.C.”
7. It is crystal clear that the High Court has not considered the evidence,
neither the nature of injuries nor method and manner in which they were inflicted.
The High Court has also not considered the aspect whether the accused intended to
inflict injuries so as to cause the death. Even the circumstances to take the case out
of the purview of section 302 have also not been discussed by the High Court.
Simpliciter, it has been observed that a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence has
been made but we find from the judgment that no such exercise has been done.
Mere statement in the judgment to that effect is not enough. Evidence is not only
required to be mentioned in the judgment but its evidentiary value has to be
assessed carefully. No such exercise has been made.
8. Thus, we have no hesitation to set aside the judgment and order passed by
the High Court. While allowing appeal, we remit the matter to the High Court to
decide the same again after hearing the parties in accordance with law. It is made
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The High
Court is required to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and to decide the
appeal de novo after hearing the parties. The respondent-accused shall remain on
bail for a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment during which time he
will be free to apply to the High Court for regular bail.
…………………………J.
(Kurian Joseph)
New Delhi; ………………………..J.
September 23, 2015. (Arun Mishra)
No comments:
Post a Comment