STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAMESH

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 20-11-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 10 S.C.R. 163 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
RAMESH 
(Criminal Appeal No.1526 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 20, 2015 
[S. A. BOBDE AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ~] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part I - Punishment for 
culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Allegation that c 
respondent-father committed murder of his daughter -
Conviction and sentence u/ss. 302 and 201 - Acquittal by 
High Court holding that the chain of circumstances against 
the convict was not complete to hold him guilty- On appeal, 
held: From the evidence on record, it is proved beyond o 
reasonable doubt that when the respondent saw his daughter 
talking to PW-9, he got suddenly provoked and lost his power 
of self-control, slapped her, took her inside the house, and 
caused death of his daughter by strangulation and throttling 
- Medical reports read with oral testimony of witnesses E 
successfully prove the charge of culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder punishable u!s. 304 Part I against 
respondent - Thus, the High Court erred in holding that the 
deceased could have hanged herself and that the chain of 
circumstances was not complete against the accused -
F 
Respondent convicted u/s. 304 Part I and sentenced to 
rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 After carefully going through the medico G 
legal evidence on record, it is opined that it was not a 
case where a view could have been taken that the 
deceased died of hanging. There was no reason to 
disagree with the opinion given by PW-8-doctor that the 
deceased had died of asphyxia as a result of pressure H 
163 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A over the neck. Though PW-10-minor daughter of the 
accused stated that her elder sister's body was found 
hanging, but this witness was got declared hostile by 
the prosecution, and trial court rightly disbelieved her 
statement, for the reason that after losing her elder sister, 
B she was not in a position to lose her father. [Para 19] 
[173-F-H] 
1.2 After carefully scrutinizing the evidence on 
record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the 
c record that when accused 'R' saw his daughter talking 
to PW-9, he got suddenly provoked and lost his power 
of self-control, slapped her, took her inside the house, 
and caused death of his daughter by strangulation and 
throttling. The medical evidence clearly shows four ante 
D mortem injuries on the neck region and three around 
mouth of the deceased as mentioned in the autopsy 
report. On going through the reports read with oral 
testimony of witnesses, there is no hesitation in holding 
that prosecution successfully proved the charge of 
E culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable 
under Section 304 Part I against the accused/ 
respondent. [Para 22] [174-F-H] 
1.3 ExceptiOn 1 to Section 300 IPC provides that a 
F culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst 
deprived of the power of self-control by grave and 
sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who 
gave the provocation. The following three conditions, 
as required under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, are 
G fulfilled in the instant case that the provocation was not 
sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender; that the 
provocation was not given by anything done in 
obedience of the law; and that the provocation was not 
given by anything done in lawful P.xercise of the right of 
H private defence. [Para 23] [175-A-D] 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMESH 
165 
1.4 The High Court erred in law in holding that the A 
deceased could have hanged herself, and that the chain 
of circumstances was not complete against the accused. 
The judgment and order passed by the High Court is set 
aside. Accused-respondent 'R' is convicted under 
Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to rigorous B 
imprisonment for ten years. The period of sentence 
already undergone by the accused would be set off. 
[Para 24] (175-E-F] 
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 
C 
2J'd Edn - referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 1526 of 2008 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2006 of the 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 
in D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000 
Shovan Mishra, Milind KumarfortheAppellant. 
Nedumaran R., P. R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, (A.C. -
SCLSC) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Cqurt was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
E 
F 
against judgment and order dated 04.0

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