LexSANJEEV versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 2 S.C.R. 210 SANJEEV V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2013) FEBRUARY 19, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR, ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part I - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder- Prosecution case that the accused C had altercation with the victim after consuming liquor whereafter he assaulted the victim, resulting in death of victim - Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by courts below - On appeal held: In view of the evidence relating to the chain of circumstances, extra judicial confession made by the D accused to the prosecution witness which fact got corroborated from the statement of the doctor, act committed by the accused is covered by exception 4 to s.300 and is punishable uls. 304 Part I - Thus, conviction and sentence E u!s. 302 modified to one uls. 304 Part I and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50001-. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The circumstances established by the prosecution against the appellant read together, makes F it clear that it is only the appellant who could have caused death of 'RP' in the intervening night. When the prosecution successfully proved that accused suffered the injury almost at the same time when the deceased had suffered the injuries, there should have been some G explanation on the record from the side of the defence as to how he (accused) received the injury and went to Government Hospital where his injury was recorded by PW-13-doctor before giving him medical treatment. In H 210 SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA 211 absence thereof, the courts below had no reason to A disbelieve the evidence relating to chain of circumstances and they rightly recorded the finding that it was accused only who could have caused death with the knowledge that act committed by him is likely to result in death of the person assaulted. In order to read B either intention or knowledge to commit the crime, the courts have to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of the accused. From the evidence of PW-12, it reflects that while making extra judicial confession, the appellant c narrated that after both he and the deceased got drunk, they engaged into an altercation whereafter scuffle took place, and the appellant caused injuries on the forehead and chest of the deceased which fact got corroborated from the statement of PW-13. [Para 13, 15, 16] [217-G-H; o 218-A-B, D-E] 1.2 When the prosecution evidence relating to extra judicial confession made before PW-12 is believed by the courts below to examine as to whether act committed by the accused constitutes culpable homicide E amounting to murder or not, they should have read the statement as a whole, and the circumstances, in which the injuries were caused by the appellant to the deceased, should not have been ignored. Having gone through the evidence on record and the submissions, F the act committed by the appellant is covered by Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as such the same is, punishable u/s. 304 Part I. The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below under Section 302 IPC against the G appellant, is set aside. [Para 18, 19] [219-8-F] ' CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2011 of the H 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 827-DB of 2002 8 J.P. Tiwari, Sanjeev Bansal, Praksh Kumar Singh for the Appellant. Nupur Choudhary (for Kamal Mohan Gupta) for the Respondent. The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by C PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 827- 08 of 2002 whereby conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sonepat against the 0 appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been affirmed. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. E 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-9 Raj Singh, resident of Village Hassanpur, had three brothers. Raj Pal@ Pale (deceased) was younger to him. All the four brothers used to live separately. On 11.1.2000, Raj Singh had gone to Sonepat with his brother Raj Pal for some personal wor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.