LexNANAK RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 3 S.C.R. 326 NANAK RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1985 of 201 O etc.) FEBRUARY 26, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s. 300, Exception 4 and s. 304 (part I) -Dispute between rival groups over a land dispute, turned into sudden fight resulting into death of one person on complainant's side - High Court converting conviction u/s 302 to one uls 304(Part II) .. Held: Out of 9 injuries on deceased only one was held to 0 be grievious in nature which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death - In heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel accused caused injuries on deceased - The act was done by accused person with intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death - Offence will E squarely fall within s.304 (Part I) - Conviction and sentence u/s 304 (Part II) set aside and appellants convicted uls 304 (Part I) and sentenced to 7 years RI each - Appellants are not entitled to be released on probation - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. F The appellant in Crl. A. No. 1985 of 2010 and the appellants in Crl. A. No. 342 of 2011 along with four others were stated to have caused injuries to victim party over a land dispute. One of the victims died on the spot and another received injuries. The appellant in Crl. A. No. 1985 G of 2010 absconded whereas the others were prosecuted and, except one of them, were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. One of the appellant in Crl. A. No. 342 of 2011 and another were convicted and sentenced u/s 302 IPC. Others were convicted and H 326 NANAK RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 327 sentenced to five years RI u/s 304 (part II) IPC. All the five A accused persons were also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for other offences. The appellant in Crl. A. No. 1985 of 2010, when apprehended, was tried and was convicted and sentenced u/s 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for other 8 offences. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, four of the accused died and their appeals abated. The High Court converted the conviction u/s 302 to one u/s 304(part II) IPC and sentenced the accused persons to 5 years RI. The conviction and sentences under various C other sections were maintained. The appeal of the State against complete acquittal of one of the accused and for enhancement of sentence of other accused was dismissed. The surviving accused filed the appeals challenging their conviction whereas the State filed the 0 appeal for enhancement of their sentence. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 PW 7, the injured witness and PW11 are brothers of the deceased and PW6 is their sister. PW 2 is an independent witness. All these persons witnessed the E occurrence. The testimonies of PW2, PW6, and PW11 are natural cogent and in all material particulars corroborated the testimony of PW7. Accepting their testimonies it is clear that during the occurrence all the seven accused as members of unlawful assembly inflicted injuries with their F weapons on the deceased and PW 7. [para 13] [337-A, F, G-H] 1.2 That the deceased died of homicidal violence is established by the medical evidence adduced in the case. There is no doubt that the deceased died of injuries G sustained during the occurrence. It is further relevant to note that the doctor (PW9) examined PW7 immediately after the occurrence and found 11 injuries on him. There is no delay in registering case and there is no flaw in the investigation. [para 14 and 15] [338-A, C, F] H 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A 1.3 It is true that the accused party had land dispute with the victim party. The evidence shows that the accused party was desirous to get the subject I.and to themselves and were taking legal steps to achieve it. On coming to know of the fencing put by the deceased and 8 his brothers, they were annoyed and went there to remove the fencing. While they were dismantling the fencing, the deceased and his brothers came there and objected to it and a sudden quarrel erupted. A fight suddenly takes place for which both parties are more or C less to be blamed and it is a combat whether with or without weapons. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct, it would not have taken the serious turn it did. Heat of passion requires that there must be no t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.