Lalu Vs. the State of M.P. - Court Judgment

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.678/2003 Lalu…………………………………………………………………………………………...Appellant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh…………………………………………………...Respondent For the appellant : Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Puneet Shroti, Government Advocate. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ****** JUDGMENT

(27.6.2013) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.The sole appellant Lalu has been convicted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- or, in default of payment of fine, two months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Victim Lalwa, aged about 50 years, was father of the appellant.

3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant lived separately along with his family from father Lalwa and mother Gopibai (P.W.1). On 29.3.2002 the appellant invited Lalwa and Gopibai to his house on the eve of Holi festival. There appellant and Lalwa consumed liquor whereafter on some issue they started grappling with each other. The appellant then in a fit of anger suddenly brought a small knife from inside and after stabbing in the abdomen of Lalwa he ran away leaving the knife on the spot. Lalwa could not survive the stab injury and died.

4. Gopibai is an eyewitness to the incident. She in her evidence has categorically narrated the incident as mentioned above. The appellant is son of Gopibai. She, therefore, has no reason to falsely implicate him. The post- mortem examination report, Ex.P18, prepared by Dr. T. K. Chouksey (P.W.17) also confirms the death of Lalwa due to incised wound caused on the upper part of abdomen between Xiphisternum and Umbilicus. The report further 2 reveals that the stab wound had even reached upto the inferior surface of spleen causing an incised wound on spleen.

5. Having regard to the evidence available on record, the learned counsel for appellant has not assailed the prosecution story which is well-founded and fully proved. We accordingly confirm the finding of the trial court that appellant alone had caused the death of Lalwa.

6. The learned counsel for appellant has, however, argued that even accepting the prosecution version in totality, it cannot be said that appellant had the intention to murder his father Lalwa and as such the offence will not be under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but under Part II of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. We find substance in his submission. The appellant admittedly dealt a single stab wound with a small knife on the abdomen of Lalwa in a fit of anger after both of them had consumed liquor and were grappling with each other. It is not that appellant had invited Lalwa to cause his death. Thus, it cannot be held that he had any pre-meditation to kill Lalwa with a small knife. Had he intended to do so, he would have repeated the stabbing and then ran away as there was absolutely no protest. Having regard to the act of appellant, we are unable to agree that he had any intention to cause the death of Lalwa. It can, however, be safely held that he had the knowledge that by causing a stab wound with a small knife to Lalwa, he would die.

7. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imposed to him thereunder and instead convict him under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and impose a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is, however, confirmed. The appellant is in jail since 31.3.2002 and, therefore, he be released forthwith if he has undergone the sentence and not wanted in any other case.

8. The appeal is partly allowed. (AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE JUDGE