LexRAM KARAN & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'.,ii
3~5
A
RAM KARAN & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Marc~ 4, 1982
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, D.A. DESAI AND
A. VARADARAJAN, JJ,)
Sentencing-lmpqsition of appropriate Jentence, under stction 302 or 304
depends on the nature of offence of culpable homicide-Evidence showing homicide
by both parties in a CiVil Suit in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
quarrel-Appropriate sentence would be olie under sections 304(1)/34 Indian Penal
Code and not under sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code-Probability of culpability
not proved by legal evidence- Benefit of doubt must ensue in such cases.
The five accused Ram Karan, his sons Sunil Kumar, Ved Prakash, Anil
Kumar, Salish Kumar and deceased son Chhoteylal filed a Civil Suit 34 of 1967
against the decased Prakash Chandra, his brother Oopi Chandra and one Krishan.
Devi,. alleging that while
constructing their new house Prakash Chandra had
encroached upon a portion of their land. In that suit appellant Ram Karan got
Commissioners appointed by the court on five or six occasions for taking
measurements of the properties with the object of proving his case of encroach .. -
ment by Prakash Chandra,. the deceased. But these Commissioners' reports
were set aside on the objection raised by Prakash Chandra and the other
defendants. The last Advocate Commissioner Mr. Mathur (C.W. I) visited the
spot on 6""9-1970, the day of occurrence, accompanied by Mr. Zafar Hussain
(C.W. 2) who appeared for decoased Prakash Chandra and Mr. Mahesh Chandra
(C.W. 3) who appeared for Ram Karan. After the completion of the survey
work and measurements at about 1 P.M. when all the three lawyers were standing
and talking in front of the house of the appellants deceased Prakash Chandra
and Umesh Chandra came there to talk to the Commissioner, which. interference
was not liked by the appollants. This resulted in a sudden quarrel, exchange of
hot words later followed by assault with knife etc., on the appellants which,
according to prosecution, was in the exercise of right of self-defence by the
prosecution party, particulary Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 11).
On the side of the
'
appellants Ram Karan's son Chhotey Lal (accused) died and on the side of the
prosecution Prakash Chandra and his son Umesh Chandra died and Dinesh
Chandra (P.W. 11) was grievously injured. All the five accused were tried and
convicted by the Sessions Judge for offences under sections 302/149 J.P.C.
(two counts) and 307/149 I.P.C. and were
sentenced
to
imprisonment
for life and rigorous im.Pi'isonment for four years respectively.
Ram Karan
was also convicted under sectioD. 147 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and his four sons were convicted under section
148 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. In appeal the
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
396
iUPRBME COURT Ri!i>oilTs
[I982j 3 s.c.a.
High
Court
acquitted Anil Kumar and Satish Kumar, set aside the
conviction and sentence under sections 147 and 148 l.P.C. in respect of the rest
and confiribed {a) their sentence of life imprisonment by alterting the conviction
one under sections 302/34 I.P .C. and (b) their sentence of four years rigorous
imprisonment to one under sections 307/34 I.P.C. Hence the appeal by special
leave by Ram Karan and bis two sons.
+
B
Acquitting Ram Karan and allowing the appeal of the other two Jn part,
c
D
E
G
the Court
HELD : Having regard to the age of the appellant Ram Karan who
was about 70 years old at the time of the occurrence, there is a reasonable doubt
as to whether he would have caught ~hold of the young man Dinesh Chandra
/"" -.-A--:~
(P.W. 11) by his waist and whether he would have asked all hi< sons to attack
and kill Prakash Chandra and his sons. The appellant Ram Karan is entitled
to be set at liberty. [409 D·El
BY MAJORITY
Per Faza/ Ali, J. (and on behalf of D.A. Desai, J.)
1:1. Exception 4 to section 300 I.P.C. provides that culpable homicide
is not murder if it is committed without pre-meditation in a lsudden fight in the
beat of passion upon a sudden qUarrel and without the offenders having taken
undue advantage or acted in_a cruel or unusual manner. {399 D]
l :2. · In this case, the incident occurred upoD. a sudden quarrel a1;1d no
one took undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner on either side.
Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra on the side of the prosecution died and
Chhotey Lal on the side of the accused died and eaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.