Allowed

Mukul Raj v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2023CRLR/946/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the deployment of the magistrate's conviction order under Section 307 IPC, rejecting the argument that the order was vague. It distinguished prior judgments by distinguishing this case's facts involving serious intent and multiple injuries, ruling that conviction depends on intent and the act itself rather than the injury result.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; order of the learned trial magistrate confirming conviction quashed.

Mukul Raj Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/002389]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 946/2017

¶4

Mukul Raj S/o Narendra, R/o Near Ganesh Mandir, Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deshraj Kalwania For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

10/02/2023

¶13

;g ;kfpdk ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk vkjksi fojfpr djus ds vkns'k fnukafdr 28-02-2017 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlds }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;kph&vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 452] 324] 307] 392 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk o /kkjk 4@25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vijk/kksa ds vUrxZr vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr dj vkjksi fojfpr fd;s gSA

¶14

;kph&vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us izdV fd;k gS fd os bl ;kfpdk esa /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr fojfpr vkjksi dh gn rd gh vkykSP; vkns'k dks pqukSrh ns jgs gSaA

¶15

;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izdj.k esa tks lk{; vkSj lkexzh ekStwn gS] mld s vk/kkj ij /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k ;kph&vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksi dh fojpuk ;ksX; ugha curk gSA mudk rdZ gS fd vkgr fouksn ukxkSjh] ftlds laca/k esa mDr vkjksi fojfpr fd;k x;k gS] ds pksV izfrosnu ds vuqlkj mls pkj pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ gS vkSj pkjksa gh lk/kkj.k izdfr dh pksVsa gSA mudk rdZ gS fd tgka dkfjr migfr;ka lk/kkj.k izdfr dh gksa] ogka /kkjk

[2023/RJJP/002389]

[CRLR-946/2017]

(2 of 5)

307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k ugha curk gSA vius mDr rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p; izLrqr fd,&

¶20

Ramlal & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. S.B. Cri. Rev. Petition No. 902/03 Decided on 28.08.2003

¶21

Sutta @ Tejuddin & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. S.B. Cri. Rev. Petition No. 1331/2012 Decided on 08.01.2013

¶22

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd ifjoknh vkgr us vius dFku esa ekSds ij rhu lk{khx.k eqds'k] fnus'k vkSj lksuw dk miyC/k gksuk izdV fd;k gSA lk{kh eqds'k us vius /kkjk 161 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr fd;s x;s dFku esa ekSds ij Lo;a dk mifLFkr gksuk gh ugha crk;k gSA lk{kh fnus'k vkSj lksuw us Hkh Qfj;knh fouksn ukxkSjh ds dFku dk iw.kZ leFkZu ugha fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; us tks /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;k gS] og loZFkk fof/k&fo:) gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vius vkns'k esa vkjksi fojfpr djus ds dkj.kksa dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gS vkSj ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr ugah fd;k gSA vr% mDr vkns'k dks vikLr fd;k tkosA

¶23

blds foijhr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd dk rdZ gS fd /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k vkjksi dh fojpuk ;ksX; curk gS ;k ugha] blds fy, pksVksa dh izd`fr ugha cfYd pksV dkfjr djus dk vk'k; ns[kk tkuk gksrk gSA mudk rdZ gS fd ipkZ c;ku] ftlds vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiskVZ ntZ gqbZ gS] mlesa Qfj;knh us vfHk;qDr }kjk Lo;a dks tku ls ekjus ds fy, geyk djuk izdV fd;k gSA mudk rdZ gS fd vfHk;qDr us pkdw ls ,d ls vf/kd okj vkgr ds 'kjhj ij fd;s gSa] ftlesa mlds xnZu ij Hkh pkdw dh pksV dkfjr gqbZ gSA vfHk;qDr ls pkdw dh cjkenxh Hkh gqbZ gSA mudk rdZ gS fd vkjksi ds izdze ij lk{; dk lw{e foospu fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vkns'k loZFkk fof/k lEer gSA vr% izLrqr ;kfpdk fujLruh; gS] ftls fujLr fd;k tkosA

¶24

geus izLrqr rdZ&fordZ ij euu fd;kA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;kA fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kUr gS fd vkjksi ds Lrj ij vfHk;qDr dks vkjksfir djus gsrq U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk vko';d ugha gS fd i=koyh ij

[2023/RJJP/002389]

[CRLR-946/2017]

(3 of 5)

vfHk;qDr dks nks"kfl) djus gsrq i;kZIr lk{; miyC/k gS ;k ugha] cfYd ek= izFke n`"V;k vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tkuk izrhr gksuk pkfg,A U;kf;d fofu'p; dkafrHknz 'kkg cuke if'pe caxky jkT; vkijkf/kd vihy la[;k 05@2000 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd vkjksi fojfpr djrs le; ekeys ds xq.kkoxq.k dh xgurk ,oa foLrkj ls leh{kk fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶29

;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/kksa dk vkjksi fojfpr djrs le; U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd i=koyh ij bl vk'k; dh izFke n"V;k lk{; vkSj lkexzh ekStwn gS] ftlls vfHk;qDrx.k dk vk'k; gR;k djus dk izdV gksrk gksA /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k ds xBu ds fy, vkbZ pksVksa dh izdfr gh ,dek= fu/kkZjd rRo ugha gSA /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k curk gS ;k ugha] blds fy, vfHk;qDrx.k dk vk'k; egRoiw.kZ gSA ifjfLFkfr;ka ftuesa vijk/k fd;k x;k gS] vijk/k dk gSrqd] iz;qDr gfFk;kj vkfn vk'k; ds fy, fu/kkZjd rRo gSA eR;q dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ds lkFk dqN ckg~; dR; Hkh fd;k x;k gks] ;g Hkh nf'kZr gksuk vko';d gksrk gSA ;gh fl)kUr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d fofu'p; Ratan Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. JT 2009 (6) SC 166 fuEu izdkj ls fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS&

¶30

"It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled, with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."

[2023/RJJP/002389]

[CRLR-946/2017]

(4 of 5)

orZeku izdj.k esa Qfj;knh fouksn ukxkSjh us vius ipkZ c;ku esa Li"Vr% ;g dgk gS fd eqdqy mlds vkWfQl esa vk;k vkSj dgk fd rwus 'ksjflag o Hkokuh flag dks ijs'kku dj j[kk gS] mUgksaus eq>s rq>s tku ls [kRe djus dh lqikjh nh gSA ,slk dgrs gq, mlus pkdw fudky dj esjs ij geyk fd;k] ftlls esjs ckabZ rjQ xnZu ij o ck;sa gkFk ij pksVsa vkbZ gSA mlus esjs ihB ij Hkh pkdw ekjus dh dksf'k'k dh] exj eSaus cpko dj fy;k] ftlls esjs gkFk esa pksVsa yxh gSA vkgr ds mDr dFkuksa dk leFkZu xokg fnus'k vkSj lksuw us vius dFkuksa esa fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ftl rjg ;kph&vfHk;qDRk pkdw ysdj vkWfQl esa vk;k vkSj ihfM+r ij pkdw ls ckj&ckj okj fd;k] ftlls mlds xnZu tSls ekfeZd vax ij /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ gSA ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk ihfM+r dh ihB esa pkdw ekjus dh dksf'k'k esa mlds }kjk cpko djus ij ihfM+r ds gkFk esa Hkh pksV vkbZ gS] izdj.k esa pkdw dh cjkenxh Hkh gqbZ gSA blls izFke n`"V~;k ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk gR;k djus dk vk'k; izdV gksrk gSA

¶35

;kph&vfHk;qDRk }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p; Sutta @ Tejuddin & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. esa ifjoknh }kjk ryokj dh pksVsa vkuk tkfgj fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq pksV izfrosnu ds vuqlkj /kkjnkj gfFk;kj dh dksbZ pksV ugha gksuk izsf{kr djrs gq, U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k ugha ekuk FkkA vU; U;kf;d n`"VkUr Ramlal & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. esa ?kVuk ds lglk ?kfVr gksus ds dkj.k gR;k dk vk'k; ugha ekuk FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa gekjs fopkj ls izLrqr nksuksa gh U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa ds rF; orZeku~ izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSaA

¶36

vr% gekjs fopkj ls ;kph&vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k vkjksi dh fojpuk ;ksX; izFke n`"V;k cuuk ik;k tkrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksi fojpuk ds lEcU/k esa tks vkns'k fnukafdr 28-02-2017 ikfjr fd;k gS] mlesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ voS/krk] vuqfprrk ,oa =qfV ugha gSA vr% mDr vkns'k esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA

[2023/RJJP/002389]

[CRLR-946/2017]

(5 of 5)

mi;qZDr foospukuqlkj ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk fujLr dh tkrh gSA LFkxu izkFkZuk&i= Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶41

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶42

VISHAL SHARMA /34

Mukul Raj v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul Raj v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam Son of Roojdar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bajrang Lal Sharma S/O Shri Onkar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiv Kumar Son of Shri Hakim Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Girraj S/O Shri Jagannath Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs Smt Kavita Bhat @ Vidhya Bhat @ Kavita S

Shivraj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P