Dismissed

Chandra Mohan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Nov 2018CRLLA/201/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal leave to appeal, the High Court examined the trial court's order acquitting two accused for lack of common intention while convicting another for culpable homicide. The Court found the acquittal lawful and the conviction sustainable based on forensics indicating a blunt instrument rather than a sharp axe.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal was dismissed without any order of the trial court being quashed or modified.

Chandra Mohan Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 201/2017

¶4

Chandra Mohan son of Shri Ramji Lal, by caste Yogi, resident of Village Kali Dhay, Police Station Rawajna Dungar, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

¶5

----Appellant-Complainant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

2.Jagdish Prasad son of Shri Hanuman

¶10

3.Harimohan son of Shri Hanuman

¶11

4.Smt. Ladbai wife of Jagdish

¶12

All are by caste Gurjar, resident of Kalidhay, Police Station Rawajna Dungar, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

¶13

---Accused-Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr.Pankaj Sisodia, Public Prosecutor Mr.Girish Khandelwal – for accused

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Order

¶16

20/11/2018

¶17

None appears on behalf of the complainant-appellant to press leave to appeal, though, the case was called twice.

¶18

This leave to appeal has been filed against the order dated 13^th January, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Session Case No.32/2012 (56/2011), whereby, one accused Jagdish Prasad s/o Shri Hanuman has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 304 Part II IPC while acquitting the other accused.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CRLLA-201/2017]

¶21

The facts available on record show that after registration of the FIR, investigation was caused by the police. The charge sheet was filed thereupon for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. When the accused did not confess the charges, trial commenced. In the evidence, it comes that accused Jagdish Prasad caused injury to the deceased Kailashi by using an axe. Taking into consideration that incident took place all of a sudden and use of an axe from the reverse side, the trial Court did not find it to be a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC, thus convicted Jagdish for the offence under Section 323 and 304 Part II IPC. No allegation for participation in the occurrence was made against other accused. A case of common intention to cause incident was not found by the trial Court, accordingly, the accused Harimohan and Smt. Ladbai were acquitted from the offence.

¶22

Perusal of the evidence on record does not show that a case is made out against Harimohan and Smt.Ladbai with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The prosecution failed to produce evidence to show common intention of the accused to cause incident. The occurrence took place on a grocery shop where the axe, available with the accused Jagdish Prasad, was used from the reverse side. In view of the above, the trial Court found that even Jagdish Prasad was not having intention to cause culpable homicide amounting to murder.

¶23

Taking into consideration the aforesaid and as no allegation regarding participation against other accused exists, a case with the aid of Section 34 IPC is not made out in absence of common intention. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in acquittal of Harimohan and Smt. Ladbai from the offences.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLLA-201/2017]

¶26

The evidence available on record further shows that accused Jagdish Prasad has also used axe from the reverse side. The incident took place all of a sudden, thus a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. He has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 304 Part II IPC. As per the medical and postmortem report, the injuries received by the deceased is not out of sharp edged weapon, though, two witnesses have stated about use of an axe from the front side but it is not corroborated by the postmortem report and even by the statement of doctor, who prepared the postmortem report. Even in the FIR, PW – 1 Chandra Mohan has stated about use of an axe from the reverse side and is corroborated by the postmortem report where the only injury received by the deceased is by a blunt object.

¶27

The incident, as described, shows that the complainant was having a grocery shop. The accused Jagdish Prasad was purchasing his grocery from the said shop but was not paying due amount. The complainant demanded money on the day of the occurrence, which was refused by the accused Jagdish Prasad. He then went with the assurance to bring money and thereupon, the occurrence took place where accused Jagdish Prasad caused a head injury to deceased Kailashi by using an axe from reverse side.

¶28

Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused Jagdish Prasad for the offence under Section 323 and 304 Part II IPC. We do not find any illegality in the said order so as to grant leave to appeal.

¶29

Accordingly, leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶30

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶31

(M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶32

Preeti/2

Chandra Mohan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Mohan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Trilok Singh S/O Shri Bheru Singh B/C Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangli Devi Wife of Shri Radheyshyam Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagirath S/O Shri Ramswroop B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Home

Nizambaksh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

State of Rajasthan Vs Veer Singh and Anr.

Hargyan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P