Partly allowed

Jagdish Kumar Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2018CRLA/700/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court reduced the appellant's conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) to causing grievous hurt (Section 304 Part-I IPC) because the intention was to clarify a relationship, not cause death. The conviction for harassment (Section 450 IPC) was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC; sentence reduced to 10 years R.I. with fine; conviction under Section 450 IPC maintained; appeals run concurrently.

Jagdish Kumar Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH .,. .AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 700/2012

¶3

Jagdish Kumar Bairwa @ Pappu S/o Gangadhar @ Gangaram Bairwa, aged 38 years, R/o Village Badi Jhapda Kalan, Police Station Chaksu, Jaipur Rural, presently tenant at House No.218, Sanjay Nagar, Kachhi Basti, Jaipur, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur

¶4

% wg
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena with

¶5

For Respondent(s)

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUS

¶7

By way of this criminal appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 23.06.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.3) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.1/2010, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant as under:-

¶8

'U/S 302 IPC-Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 mphths S.I.

¶9

U/S 450 IPC- 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs.l000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo I month S.I."

¶10

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

¶11

The police registered a case based on a written report (Ex.P1) made by PW-I Boduram for the incident took place on 14.06.2010. It was stated that while the complainant had gone out and his wife was also not available at the place of occurrence, he accused Jagdish ,.$@-$. '$t " $3 Ex.P-I, the Police r the offence under Section 302 and

¶12

the investigation, the for the offence under Section 302 and 45 framed charges for those offences. The guilty, rather, claimed trial thus it was comm

¶13

The prosecution pr ses apart from producing 47 documents. The was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. T the accused for the offence under Sectio nd sentenced to life imprisonment.

¶14

THE EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION

¶15

The prosecution produced evidence to prove its case. PW-I Boduram made his statement gave description of the incidence though he is not an eye-witness and came to the place of occurrence after the incident. He saw Anita in pool of blood. PW-7 Chiranjilal is said to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. It is stated that while he was at his residence, the accused came and asked him to open the door. Whens'was not opene.d, then he

¶16

(3 of 9)

¶17

[CRLA-700/2012]

¶18

went to Anita's house. The said witness came out from his house from the other door because front door was locked by the accused from outside. He had seen accused having a bag (Katta) in his hand. The accused went inside Anita's house. The accused caused a blow on Anita's head. He shouted after seeing the occurrence. All the residents of the colony gathered and caught the accused. 1; the cross-examination PW-7 has admitted at one place that no .": * x:yyf>.,, k .MoJj,&tgp one seen accused~~~~~;.nig. sn.itaw.. but otherwise his , %%a$& T. - ."@$ statement in ahi5could not be demolished by CheEippellant. PW-7 ,,a?, .$. %, V'% 2- t*,**f * :&@ z ?. child witness at the age of 15 years. er material witness produced by the p

¶19

PW-15 Om Prakash Na statement of accus stated that when he accused was undergoi murder by him. It was exbla/i id !i used against him. Th

¶20

I on 04.06.2010, the accused confessed the hat his statement can be ment is Ex.P-41.

¶21

The accused ad

¶22

Anita. She was given

¶23

to the date of occurr n to the hospital for treatment where even accused gave his services. Deceased Anita was ,not talking to him, rather, was talking to one Amit. The accused went to Anita's place to know the reason and to make her understand about their relation. Anita did not agree to understand the relations between them, thus he caused one blow to Anita by a hammer. It is not in his knowdedge&to how may blows were given.

¶24

PW-5 Jalim Singh stated that he heard noice thus immediately came down from' his house. When he went to the place of occurrence, it was informed that a girl has sustained electric shock. He entered in the house of deceased Anita. She was found in pool of blood. Accused Jagdish was available at the place of occurrence. He was brought outside the house and beaten by the residents. The said witness has given different story than what has been

¶25

Sitaram are also relati . They are not eyewitnesses but went after commission of offence. PW-10 Smt. f the deceased Anita. occurrence. In view of the above, the pros ced PW-7 Chiranjilal, and PW-I5 Om Prakash e. PW-5 Jalim Singh had given different stat ;he prosecution. 4b~ :T&E

¶26

the evidence. The per eport (Ex.P-10) shows that the deceased had received seven injuries. First injury was lacerated wound on occipital region and was the cause of death. Other injuries were abrasions and bruises on different parts of the body. The prosecution has even recovered blood of the deceased apart from clothes found at the place of occurrence. They were blood stained and sent for the F.S.L. Report. The F.S.L. Report also supports the prosecution case. Based flthe aforesaid, the trial

¶27

(5 of 9)

¶28

[CRLA-700/2012]

¶29

Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 and 450 IPC.

¶30

ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

¶31

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the prosecution could not prove its case. The prosecution produced PW-7 Chii-anjilal as eye-witness. He is otherwise a child witness and narrated the story contrary to what was given in Ex.P-1.

¶32

In the admitted that he had not Anita. In

¶33

In the & w&. EsAP-41, recorded by PW-15 Om Prakash Nayak, ,t~~~& one blow a hammer. It is submitted tfi' state ment taken into considera not come with an intention to cause de came to make Anita understand about the he above, even if the entire evidence of the to consideration, case does not go beyond Se

¶34

If the statement of PW-7 ~hiranjilal is taken into consideration, the accused Jagdish caused only one blow thus it was not a case of repeated blows to the deceased. PW-5 Jalim Singh has not given corroborative statement yet his testimony was relied by the trial Court. Other witnesses came after the occurrence thus they are not eye witnesses.

¶35

In view of the above, the prayer is to interfere in the order passed by the trial court and substiKite the sentence for the

¶36

(6 of 9)

¶37

[CRLA-700/2012]

¶38

offence under Section 302 with that of Section 304 Part-I IPC. The case under Section 450 IPC is not made out. However, if it is maintained, sentenced for the offence under Section 304 Part-1 IPC may be reduced.

¶39

ARGUMENTS BY THE SIDE OPPOSITE-

¶40

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments. She submits that the prosecution could bring evidence to prove their

¶41

case beyond

¶42

itself is

¶43

stated that PW-7 Chira.njila;l:?.i

¶44

description of the in

¶45

ents produced by the report. The deceased has T'-. rec@ue*d : as-many as seven injuries, out -%'gaA . ' ; .." $i+;> . <,$ ..~ r;l *:,: : **. , ; of which, two were on vi?p%. All tznjuries were caused by the accused, thus he caused murder. A case under Section 304 Part-1 IPC is not made out. The prayer is made to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶47

An FIR was registered by the police based on Ex.P-1 given by PW-1 Boduram. It was stated that apround 400 PM, accused

¶48

(7 of 9)

¶49

[CRLA-700/2012]

¶50

Jagdish entered in Anita's house and locked the door from inside. Deceased Anita was alone at that time as her father and mother went out for work. Accused Jagdish gave a hammer blow on deceased head, out of which, she died. Based on the report, an FIR was registered by the police. After the chargesheet, the Court framed charges for the offence under Section 302 and 450 IPC.

¶51

The prosecution produced PW-I Boduram. He is not an eye4 h, &i

¶52

witness, rather can@"Q&t@plac " $'" amB@& & incident. pd A The %?aterial witness prod * !. .d "Ky$ Chiranjilal, who is a child witnes

¶53

case. He has seen accu,spd ; .',?:A ~< injury to the deceased P a hammer was post mortem report @ also sh0w.s that Anita s:

¶54

case. He has seen accu,spd ;

¶55

further corroborated by

¶56

rt of the accused who was

¶57

beaten bv the reside

¶58

The statement zg %jSP yated even by Ex.P-41 recorded by learned M~~gistratk Om Nayak and produced , ' * x vg as PW-15. The accurpadmitted his participation in the

¶59

occurrence where he caused one blow to the deceased Anita by a hammer. He was having affair with Anita, who said to have been poisoned by her uncle 3-4 days prior to the date of incidence. She was not talking to the accused, rather, was seen with another boy Amit. The accused came to the residence of deceased to make her understand about their relation. When'it was not accepted, he caused the occurrence.

¶60

(8 of 9)

¶61

[CRLA-700/2012]

¶62

The perusal of Ex.P-41 recorded by learned Magistrate shows . that the accused did not come with an intention to cause death of deceased, rather, his intention was to make deceased Anita understand about their relation. When the relation was not accepted then, he caused blow by a hammer said to have been brought by him. The intention of the appellant was not to cause death but to make deceased understand about her relation but ,with the knowledge that a head sufficient to cause death. the a .<&* under Settion 302 is not made out, . .". 304 Part-I IPC. The d that the accused came only with an i eceased Anita. Accordingly, we a he argument of the learned counsel for th viction of the appellant for offence under S ed to Section 304 Part-I IPC.

¶63

So far as the e evidence produced by the prosecution sh ad not come with the intention to cause de e senieqce the accused to 10 w4a years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.l0,000/-, in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of the accused for offence under Section 450 IPC is maintained. It is after considering the confessional statement recorded by the trial court vide Ex.P-41. He had entered in the residence of AnitMhus the conviction and

¶64

sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 450 is

¶65

maintained. The sentence would run concurrently.

¶66

The appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid.

¶67

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶68

MohitR16

Jagdish Kumar Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Kumar Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alladdin Mehrat Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mukesh Goyal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hanuman S/O Shri Moti Lal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Abid Mohammad Qureshi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Bhobal Singh and Ors. Vs State