Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Date of Judgment: 2 December 2010
Facts of the Case: Seven persons in all were sent up for trial for having committed the murder of Ashok Kumar on the 13th of June, 1995. Of the seven persons aforesaid Surendra Kumar and Shivdayal absconded. The trial court by its judgment dated 7th August, 1998 in the present matter convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal Rajpal accused died and the appeal was, accordingly, dismissed qua him as having abated. The High Court vide its judgment dated 29th May, 2003, however, acquitted respondent Nos. 2 to 4 namely, Satish Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Lakhan Singh on the ground that the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence insofar as they were concerned and as far as respondent No. 1 was concerned his conviction was altered from one under Section 302 to Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and as he had been in jail since June, 1995, the sentence was reduced to that already undergone. It was under these circumstances that this appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan.
Issue: This appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan impugning the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in toto and also challenging the acquittal of respondent No. 1 under Section 302 and the substitution of Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code instead.
Judgment: Dr. Manish Singhvi, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State of Rajasthan, the appellant herein, very forcefully argued that the case of the respondent No.1 fell squarely under the purview of Section 302 IPC and his conviction was, therefore, to be made under that provision. He pointed out that in any case the conviction of the respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC was completely erroneous as there was clear intention on the part of respondent to cause death. The learned counsel for the respondents controverted this submission and supported the judgment of the High Court. The High Court dealt with this matter on the facts of the case. The Court held that the participation of the three acquitted respondents could not be established beyond reasonable doubt as the statements of the eye witnesses, P.W 2 and 3 were discrepant on material particulars and the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution story. Also, the High Court dealt with the case of respondent No.1 in a clear cut manner as the injury attributed to him was not on a vital part of the body and that it could not be ascertained as to which of the accused was the assailant. In the light of the arguments made by Dr. Manish Singhvi some of the broad observations made by the High Court may not be entirely correct but the Court felt that keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no interference was called for.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi