Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Roopa Ram
v.
State Of Rajasthan
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 1066 Of 1998 | 09-10-1998
1. Leave granted limited to the nature of offence. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant and two others were tried for committing the murder of one Naba in furtherance of their common intention. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. (simpliciter) and acquitted the other two. As the appeal preferred by him in the High Court proved abortive, he has filed the instant appeal.
3. In absence of any conclusive evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the injury inflicted by the appellant resulted in the death of the victim, the appellant could not be - in view of the acquittal of the other two against whom the allegation was that they also inflicted injuries on the deceased - convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. (simpliciter) as he would be liable only for his own act, which in the instant case was of causing a grievous injury on the head of the deceased by a kudali (a sharp cutting instrument). The offence committed by the appellant will, therefore, come squarely under Section 326, I.P.C. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and convict him under Section 326, I.P.C. For the altered conviction we sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
4. The appeal is thus allowed.
Appeal allowed.
2. The appellant and two others were tried for committing the murder of one Naba in furtherance of their common intention. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. (simpliciter) and acquitted the other two. As the appeal preferred by him in the High Court proved abortive, he has filed the instant appeal.
3. In absence of any conclusive evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the injury inflicted by the appellant resulted in the death of the victim, the appellant could not be - in view of the acquittal of the other two against whom the allegation was that they also inflicted injuries on the deceased - convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. (simpliciter) as he would be liable only for his own act, which in the instant case was of causing a grievous injury on the head of the deceased by a kudali (a sharp cutting instrument). The offence committed by the appellant will, therefore, come squarely under Section 326, I.P.C. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and convict him under Section 326, I.P.C. For the altered conviction we sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
4. The appeal is thus allowed.
Appeal allowed.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties -------------
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SRINIVASAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.K. MUKHERJEE
Eq Citation
(1999) SCC CRI 1316
1999 CRILJ 2901
LQ/SC/1998/1020
HeadNote
Criminal — Conviction — Alteration — Murder — Appellant convicted under S. 302, IPC (simpliciter) and acquitted by High Court — Held, in absence of conclusive evidence to prove that injury by appellant was the cause of death, conviction under S. 302, IPC unsustainable — Case of appellant squarely fell under S. 326, IPC — Conviction under S. 302, IPC set aside and that under S. 326, IPC substituted with 7 years' rigorous imprisonment — Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302 and 326\n
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
