Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Gopal vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Rajasthan Decided May 08, 2006

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/759856

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/759856
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Prem Shanker Asopa, JJ.
Decided On: May 08, 2006
Case Number: D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 2003
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 201, 302, 304 and 511; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gopal

Advocate N.C. Choudhary, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate R.P. Kuldeep, Adv. and; Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 201, 302, 304 and 511; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313
Reported In: RLW2006(3)Raj2364; 2005WLC(Raj)UC227

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....impugned judgment.6. having weighed the prosecution evidence we notice that nobody had seen the incident. however from the testimony of neighbours viz. hari narain (p w. 1) birdhi chand (pw. 2), ramesh chand (pw. 3) it is established that the appellant and deceased used to quarrel and appellant used to beat the deceased. on the date of incident in a routine quarrel the appellant gave beating to the deceased and in the course of beating one injury on right and left eye caused ecchymosis and that proved fatal. from the evidence it could not be established that appellant had any motive to cause the death of his wife. except one injury on right and left eye, other injuries sustained by the deceased were simple in nature. we thus find that the appellant acted with the knowledge that the death of his was likely to ensue, but there was no intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. since the occurrence appeared to have occurred all of sudden and there was no premeditation on the part of appellant, the offence has to be brought down from the first category of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the appellant can be held guilty under section 304 part i ipc.7. for these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of section 302 we convict the appellant under section 304 part-i of indian penal code and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.

Full Judgment

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Gopal, the appellant herein was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake District Jaipur, who vide judgment dated March 6, 2003 convicted the appellant Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 2000, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under:-

On October 6, 2000 the informant Madan (PW. 8) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 18) at Police Station Phagi wherein he stated that his daughter was married to appellant who often used to beat her. On the day of incident when he reached to the house of appellant he found his daughter lying dead. There were injuries on her head, hands and legs. On that report a case was registered for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake District.Jaipur. Charges Under Sections 302 and 201 read with 511 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses. In the explanation Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant claimed innocence. Two witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinised the material on record.

4. Indisputably the death of Sita Devi was homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex. P. 17) she received following injuries:-

1. Ecchymosis Rt. and Lt. eye 2 cm in broad at upper and lower lid and medial and lateral canthal region extending upto supra and intra orbital margins of BE (black eye)

2. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm skin deep at left lateral canthus.

3. Abrasion 1 cm x 2 cm Rt. maxillary region.

4. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm Rt. intra orbital margin below medial canthus.

5. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm Rt. pinna Helix

6. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm Lt. face at Maxillary region

7. Contusion whole arm circumscribed extending from deltoid region to 2 cm above elbow joint on both Rt. and Lt. upper arm. Gepitus present at mid third of shaft of humerus with hematoma at mid 2/3 of both arms Rt. and Lt. in circumscribed manner.

8. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm Lt. arm upper 1/3 at deltoid region.

9. Abrasion 2 cm x 3 cm Lt. upper 1/3 of forearm anterior aspect

10. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm Lt. mid 1/3 of forearm posterior aspect

11. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm Lt. hand posterior aspect

12. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm Lt. knee

13. Crush injury lacerated Rt. hand middle finger at distal phalanx upto distal inter phalangeal joint.

14. Abrasion 2 cm x 3 cm Rt. mid leg anterior aspect

15. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm Rt. knee.

16. Abrasion 2 cm x 3 cm Rt. shoulder17. Abrasion 2 cm x 3 cm Lt. lumber region above iliac crest (Lt.)

18. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm Lt. iliac crest.

In the opinion of Dr. Narendra Kumar Jain (PW. 13) the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury due to contusions and laceration of surface of tempro parietal region of brain.

5. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident and all the. witnesses only stated about the quarrel of husband and wife which usually occur in routine life. No witness has stated that he saw the appellant beating the deceased. There was no intention or motive of the appellant to kill his wife. Even according to Autopsy Surgeon only one injury or right and left eye proved fatal. Learned Public Prosecutor however opposed this contention and supported the impugned judgment.

6. Having weighed the prosecution evidence we notice that nobody had seen the incident. However from the testimony of neighbours viz. Hari Narain (P W. 1) Birdhi Chand (PW. 2), Ramesh Chand (PW. 3) it is established that the appellant and deceased used to quarrel and appellant used to beat the deceased. On the date of incident in a routine quarrel the appellant gave beating to the deceased and in the course of beating one injury on right and left eye caused Ecchymosis and that proved fatal. From the evidence it could not be established that appellant had any motive to cause the death of his wife. Except one injury on right and left eye, other injuries sustained by the deceased were simple in nature. We thus find that the appellant acted with the knowledge that the death of his was likely to ensue, but there was no intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. Since the occurrence appeared to have occurred all of sudden and there was no premeditation on the part of appellant, the offence has to be brought down from the first category of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the appellant can be held guilty Under Section 304 Part I IPC.

7. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of Section 302 we convict the appellant Under Section 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2006 Same Parties Gopal vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Prem Shanker Asopa, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 201, 302, 304 and 511; Cod...

Criminal