STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAM KAILASH ALIAS RAM VILAS

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 28-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 49 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
RAM KAILASH ALIAS RAM VILAS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2454 of 2009) 
JANUARY 28, 2016 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 r/w ss. 3125 and 3127 ~f Arms Act, 
1959 - Conviction under and sentence of life imprisonment and 
three years and seven years RI and fine with default clauses - By 
trial court - High Court converted the conviction u/s. 302 to u/s. 
304 (Part I) holding that the accused did not know as to whom (out 
of the two persons) he was causing harm - Reduced the sentence 
of life imprisonment to eight years RI - conviction under provisions 
of Arms Act, upheld - On appeal, held: Intention of accused for 
causing bodily injury which was likely to cause death was not 
disputed - The High Court altered the conviction without taking 
into consideration the doctrine of malice as envisaged u/s. 301 !PC 
- In the light of the evidence on record ingredients of s. 300 !PC 
proved - Hence, conversion of conviction to one uls. 304 (Part I) 
is not sustainable. 
Doctrine - Doctrine of transfer of malice - Penal Code, I 860 
- s. 301. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The intention on the part of the respondent-
accused in causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death is not 
a disputed fact. The reason given by the High Court that, the 
respondent did not know as to whom he was causing harm out of 
the two on the motorcycle and it was only one gunshot injury 
which resulted in death is not tenable in law. The High Court has 
failed to take into consideration the doctrine of transfer of malice 
as provided in Section 301IPC. In view of the fact that 
respondent-accused knew that his act of shooting the deceased 
person is likely to cause death of that person to whom harm is 
caused. It cannot be believed that respondent-accused did not 
know about the likelihood of causing death, though, he may not 
know as to whom he is causing bodily harm, but his act in totalit)' 
49 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
A and in the light of evidences on record clearly prove the 
ingredients of Section 300, IPC. Therefore, the High Court 
converting the sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 (Part-I) 
IPC cannot be sustained. [Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12] [54-C-D; 55-
C, E-F] 
B 
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and 
Anr. AIR 1977 SCC 45: 1977(1)SCR 601- relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
1977 (1) SCR 601 
relied on. 
Para9 
C 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 2454 of2009 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2008 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 630 
of2004 
D 
S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Amit Sharma, Yishu Prayash, S. Spandana 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Reddy, Milind Kumar for the Appellant. 
Charu Mathur, (for Mukul Kumar) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. I. This appeal by the appellant State is 
directed against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2008 passed by the 
High Court of Rajas than at Jodhpur in D .B. Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 
2004, whereby Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the 
appeal of the accused-respondent and altered his conviction from Section 
302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part-I, IPC and 
sentenced him to a period of eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine 
of Rs.50,000/-. 
2. Facts in brief of the present case are that one Ram Chandra 
filed a report Ex.P-13 before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur on 
16.6.2001 stating inter alia that on the same day, when he and Mangla 
Ram were going from Bodwa to Dadariya Khurd for attending 'maira', 
one suzuki motorcycle came from the back side at a distance of ten 
kilometers away from Kuchera. Mangla Ram, who was sitting on the 
back side of the motorcycle, cried that someone from the suzuki 
motorcycle has fired upon him. Thereupon, he saw that accused Ram 
Kailash and driver Mangi Lal were on the suzuki motorcycle. Accused-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAM KAILASH ALIAS RAM 
51 
VILAS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
respondent Ram Kailash fired with pistol, to whom, he and Mangla Ram 
A 
Sarpanch identified. Sarpach Mangla Ram was taken to Kuchera hospital, 
and thereafter, to Nagaur and from there, he was referred to Jodhpur 
hospital. Upon this report, In-charge of Police Station Kuchera registered 
a case under Section 307 /34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and 
commenced investigation. Injured Mangla Ram was operated

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.