LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus JAGAT PAUL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF HARYANA A v. JAGAT PAUL & ORS. JUNE 20, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss.34, 302 & 323: Murder-Accused persons attacked deceased and his brother with lathis and gandasis and injuring them-Deceased succumbed to injuries- C F.I.R.-Charge Sheet-Trial Court convicted and sentenced all the accused persons for offences punishable under section 302 rlw s.34 /PC-Acquitting one of the accused persons High Court altered conviction of three other accused persons to s.325 rlw s.34 f PC-On appeal, held, High Court altering conviction on the basis of report of medical officer whereby he opined the D cause of death to be cardiac arrest and statement of PW.9, the only eyewitness that accused persons gave blows with lathis and gandasis on the persons of the deceased-However, these cannot be a ground for altering the conviction under s.302 rlw s.34 /PC to s.325-ln the facts and circumstanc~s. of the case, Trial .Court rightly convicted the accused persons except respondent no.I under s.302 rlw s.34 /PC since he had no role to play in E the occurrence and High Court rightly acquitted him-Hence, conviction and sentence of accused persons except respondent no. 1 as ordered by Trial Court restored. On the fateful day, there was a quarrel between the son of the deceased and one of the accused persons near a culvert on the road. When the deceased F came to know about the incident he alongwith his brother, PW.9 went towards that side. On seeing them accused fled away. Later, accused persons armed with lath is and gandasis came and gave blows with their respective weapons on the head, face and chest of deceased. The deceased fell down on the ground. When PW.9 tried to save him, one of the accused gave a Gandasi blow from G its reverse side on his head. PW.9 raised an alarm. After committing the crime all the four accused persons ran away from the spot. Both the injured were taken to general hospital where the deceased succumbed to injuries. First Information Report was lodged and investigation was undertaken and 1075 H 1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R. - A charge sheet was filed by the police. The trial court found all the four accused y persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Appeals were preferred by the accused persons before the High Court. The High Court directed acquittal of one of the accused persons and altered B conviction of other three accused persons to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone but maintaining conviction for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, the present appeals. '>- - The Appellant-State contended that the High Court has indicated no c reason for altering the conviction, even though it found the evidence of PW.9 to be clear and cogent; and that on an erroneous reading of the doctor's evidence, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the cause of death was "Cardiac Arrest". In fact what was specifically stated by the doctor was that the head injury with its complications alongwith other injuries was the cause of death. D Disposing of the appeal, the Court \- HELD: 1.1. Only reason which appears to have weighed with the High Court for altering the conviction was that the doctor has stated the cause of death to be Cardiac Arrest and PW.9 - the only eye witness had stated that all E the accused persons gave blows with lath is and gandasis on the person of the deceased. These cannot be a ground for altering the conviction to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. (Para 5) (1078-F, G) 1.2. The conclusions of the High Court that the conviction would be F under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is clearly unsustainable. The trial court had rightly convicted the accused persons for offence punishable 'I- under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The conviction and the sentence ' ..... shall stand restored. So far as the respondent is concerned the High Court has indicated the reasons for directing his acquittal. It has noted that respondent no.I had no role to play in the occurrence; and that the earlier G quarrel took place between son of the complainant and the real brother of the accused had reasons to attack deceased and his brother respondent no. I is not related to the co-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.