LexKUNWAR PAL versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 239 KUNWAR PAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2013) OCTOBER 8, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - Prosecution and conviction of accused u/s. 304 by courts below - On appeal, held: The Intention of the acused to kill the deceased not C proved beyond reasonable doubt - However, it can be held that he had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death - Hence his conviction altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) - Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to 7 years. Appellant-accused was prosecuted for killing one person. The prosecution case was that the appellant- accused alongwith three others, had gone wit~ 3 double barrel guns to a marriage ceremony. Due to negligent firing, a cartridge hit the deceased and resulted in his death. PW-2 (the nephew of the deceased) lodged FIR. Trial court convicted the appellant uls. 304 IPC and sentence him to life imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause. High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. From the evidence on record, it is difficult D E F to accept that the shot which killed the deceased came from the gun of the appellant only. This assumes G importance because admittedly there were three other persons in the ceremony, who were firing their guns. It is not possible therefore to attribute the act of killing to the appellant, or attributing any intention to cause the 239 H 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A death of the deceased. The High Court in its judgment has found intention to kill only with the observation that the DBBL gun was carried to the ceremony with a view to create wild disorder (pandemonium) and to do some harm to some people. This observation is not sufficient B to attribute the intention to kill a particular person. This observation is also made in disregard of the practice in this part of the country to use guns while celebrating marriages in some communities. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the instant case, the gun was carried to the C marriage ceremony only to kill someone. [Para 9) [244-G- H; 245-A-D] 2. Thus the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. D Therefore, the sentence under Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC, which requires that the act by which death is caused, must be done with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is not sustainable. Though it is not possible E to attribute intention, it is equally not possible to hold that the act was done without the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. [Para 10) [245-E-G] 3. The appellant is guilty of committing the act which F caused the death of the deceased since the act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death within the meaning of Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC. However, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to a period of 7 (seven) years without making any alteration G in the fine amount imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. [Para 13) [246-E-F] H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2013. KUNWAR PAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 241 From the Judgment & Order dated 06.12.2012 of the High A C:ourt of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2005. Jayant Bhushan, Gyanendra Kr. Mishra, Pawash Piyush, Gyan Prakash Srivastava for the Appellant. 8 Rajiv Nanda for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.A. BOBDE, J.1. The appellant has approached this C Court challenging the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting and sentencing him to rigorous life imprisonment under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short 'IPC'] and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. 2. According to the prosecution the appellant is guilty of the said offence for having caused the death of one Ramayan Prasad, who was present in the marriage ceremony of one Kaushalya, daughter of Shyam Sunder. The incident took place D on 22.05.1998 in the courtyard (aangan) inside the house of E Shyam Sunder, father of the bride, where around 30 people were present to atten
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.