LexJAI KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1157 JAi KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No.1285 of 2009) JULY 21, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B s. 302 - Accused throwing the victim, who was in an C inebriated condition, into canal - Victim trying to come out, but accused kicked him and again threw him into canal - Death of victim - HELD: Accused was rightly convicted uls 302 - His case was not identical to the act of other accused who was convicted uls 304 (part - II). o The appellant and three others were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court ulss. 392, 397 and 302134 IPC. The appeals filed by the accused were dismissed by the High Court. One of the accused, namely, 'S' filed appeal before the Supreme Court contending that he was falsely E implicated in the case. However, the Court did not accept his plea. His conviction under Section 392 r/w s.397 was upheld. The Court found that his conviction uls.302 r/w s.34 IPC for having caused the death of the deceased was not justified under the facts of the case and the evidence F available on record. However, he was convicted u/s.304 (Part-II) IPC1• In the instant appeal filed by the appellant, it was contended that his case is identical to the case of accused G 'S', and therefore, he should also be given the benefit of the jud9ment in Subhash's case. 1. Subhash V. State of Haryana (2007) 12 sec 63. 1157 H 1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The overt acts on the part of the appellant together with co-accused 'J' were totally different. The deceased was caught hold of by the appellant and co- 8 accused 'J' and was thrown in the canal. The deceased even after being thrown in the canal tried to save himself desperately. He wanted to come out of the canal by catching the grass. He was kicked on the face by the appellant and co-accused 'JS' and again thrown in the canal and, as such, he could not come out. The fact that C the deceased was in an inebriated condition is not in dispute. He, therefore, upon receiving injuries, unlike PWS could not have swum to the shore to save his life. The case of the appellant is not in pari materia with that of accused 'S', and he has rightly been convicted u/s.302 D IPC. [Paras 4, 8 and 9] [1160-B; 1162-B-D] E F G Subhash v. State of Haryana (2007) 12 SCC 63, distinguished. Case Law Reference: (2001) 12 sec 63 distinguished Para 2 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2009. . From the Judgment & Order dated 28.2.2006 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal · No. 193-08 of 1997. D.P. Singh and Sanjay Jain for the Appellants. Manjit Singh, AAG, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Gaurav T. (for T.V. George) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. JAi KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 1159 2. The appellant is before us claiming parity with his co- A accused Subhash for obtaining the benefit of a judgment of this Court in Subhash v. State of Haryana since reported in [(2007) 12 sec 63). 3. At the outset, we would like to place on record that this B appeal is barred by 896 days. Ordinarily, we would not have condoned the delay but we had issued notice both on SLP as also on the application for condonation of delay only on the premise that the appellant had raised a contention before this Court that he and his co-accused Subhash are similarly c situated. 4. Appellant was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The occurrence took place on 9.10.1991. A First lr1formation Report was lodged by one Mane Ram (PW8) who D alleged that he along with the deceased Raghbir Singh had gone to village Kai Ilana in a tractor to bring 'barma' (an instrument for drawing water) from one Nandlal. After collecting the same, they left for their village at about 12 noon. They reached a village commonly known as 'Pugthala' and E purchased liquor from a liquor vendor. The deceased • separately purchased a nip of liquor and carried the same with him. When they reached near village Chamrara, the appellant, son of Basu Sardar, Jai Kumar, Subhash and Joginder Singh met them. Son of Basu Sardar took away the nip of liquor from F the deceased and consumed it. All of them again consumed some illicit liquor. They came back at the place wher
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.