LexAHMED SHAH & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 363 AHMED SHAH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1889 of 2008) JANUARY 09, 2015 [f.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part I - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Complainant C party went to take forcible possession of the land from appellants-accused and 'SB' was armed with weapon - In the course of sudden scuffle between the parties, appellants inflicted fatal injuries on SB and other accused on RK and PW 8, eye witness - Appellants tried to grapple gun from SB D - Conviction and sentence of all the accused persons u/ss. 148, 3071149 and 3021149 by the trial court - High Court convicting appellants-GS and AS u/s. 302134, accused SS and RS uls. 3071149 and acquitting all other accused of the charges uls 3021149 and convicted u/s. 148 and sentenced them to the period already undergone - On appeal, held: There was no previous deliberation or pre-meditation and the incident is a result of sudden fight - Since appellants inflicted injuries on the neck and scalp of SB with the intention of causing death, act of the appellants is punishable u!s. 304 Part I - C onviction is modified accordingly with the reduction of the substantive sentence to the period already undergone - As regards remaining accused, their order of acquittal recor:ded by High Court, does not call for interference. ' E F Partly allowing the appeal filed by the accused- G appellants and dismissing the appeal filed by the State, the Court HELD: 1.1 The concurrent views of the courts below 363 H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A regarding their overt acts is concurred with as the same is proved by the version of eye witnesses particularly PW- 8 who was consistent in her deposition regarding the participation and fatal injuries inflicted by the two appellants. But their conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC B by the High Court it is not concurred with. There seems to be mutual provocation and aggravation as the complainant party went to take possession of the land from the accused, there appears to be scuffle between the parties. There was no previous deliberation or pre- C meditation and the incident is a result of sudden fight. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant case cannot be said to be a case punishable under Section 302 IPC but a case falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Since the appellants inflicted injuries on 0 the neck and scalp of SB with the intention of causing death and the act of the accused-appellants is punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC is modified as conviction under Section 304 Part I· IPC and the substantive sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to E the period of sentence already undergone by them. [Para 17, 20, 21, 24] [372-8, C; 375-8, C; 374-F-G: 375-G-H] F Satish Narayan Sawant vs. State of Goa 2009 (14) SCR 464:(2009) 17 SCC 724 - referred to. 1 :2. Insofar as the appeal against acquittal filed by the State, upon consideration of evidence and having regard to the nature of injuries and cause of death, the High Court modified the conviction of SS and RS as one under Section 307 IPC and reduced the substantive sentence G to the period already undergone. High Court analyzed the evidence and observed that the evidence is omnibus and generalized and that no specific overt act is attributed to the remaining accused. Names of only seven persons are mentioned in the first information H report. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the AHMED SHAH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 365 High Court cannot be said to have misdirected itself in A acquitting other accused. There is no substantial ground to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court. [Para 22,23] [375-C-F] Case Law Reference: 2009 (14) SCR 464 Referred to Para 19 CRIMINAL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1889 of 2008. B From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2007 of the C High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCRA No. 704 of 2005. With Crl. Appeal No. 1904 & 1938 of 2008 and 17 of 2009. D Doongar Singh, V.J. Francis, Harikumar V., Jenis V. Francis, Ram Naresh Yadav, Milind Kumar for the Appearing Parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 20.08.2007 passed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.