9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1880 - SC - Indian LawsMurder - whether the conviction of the Appellant-Accused Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is sustainable? Whether the Appellant-Accused intentionally caused the death of deceased Veer Singh? - HELD THAT - The entire incident occurred when the Appellant had taken his buffaloes for grazing in the field of deceased for which the deceased objected and drove all the buffaloes out of his field. It is in these circumstances the Appellant became furious and abused the deceased and caused injuries on his head in a sudden fight with axe. There was no premeditation for the occurrence and because of the grazing of the cattle in a sudden fight the occurrence had taken place. Whether the act of the Appellant-Accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code? - HELD THAT - Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. In the present case the Appellant-Accused and the deceased exchanged wordy abuses on which Appellant gave the deceased blows on his head causing six head injuries. Where the occurrence took place suddenly and there was no premeditation on the part of the Accused it falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. The entire incident was in a sudden fight in which the Appellant-Accused caused head injuries on the deceased with an axe. There was no prior deliberation or determination to fight. The sudden quarrel arose between the parties due to trivial issue of grazing the buffaloes of the Appellant for which the deceased raised objection. In a sudden fight the Appellant had inflicted blows on the head of the deceased with an axe which caused six head injuries - Considering the fact that the occurrence was in a sudden fight the occurrence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the Appellant-Accused Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is therefore to be modified as conviction Under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. Whether the conviction Under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be sustained? - HELD THAT - From the evidence and other materials on record there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the Appellant only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Both the trial court and the High Court recorded the finding that the Appellant-Accused scolded the deceased Veer Singh that he belongs to Khangar Caste and how he could drive away the cattle of the person belonging to Thakur Caste and therefore the Appellant-Accused has committed the offence Under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - In the present case the fact that the deceased was belonging to Khangar -Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore the conviction of the Appellant-Accused Under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable. Insofar as the conviction Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is modified as conviction Under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. The Appellant-Accused has been serving the sentence in jail for more than twelve years. As per the jail certificate issued by the Superintendent Central Jail Gwalior the Appellant has served the actual sentence in jail for more than twelve years (as on 04.07.2018) and as on date he has served the sentence of more than thirteen years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case for the conviction Under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code the Appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment to the period already undergone. The conviction of the Appellant Under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge - conviction of the Appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is modified as conviction Under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment to the period already undergone - Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
- Conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code: The case involved an appeal arising from a judgment affirming the conviction of the Appellant-Accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The incident leading to the appeal occurred when the Appellant attacked the deceased with an axe, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified to the events, establishing the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court convicted the Appellant, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. However, upon review, it was found that the occurrence was a sudden fight without premeditation, falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was modified to a conviction under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. 2. Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: The Appellant was also convicted under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court upheld this conviction, citing the Appellant's abusive behavior towards the deceased based on his caste, which led to the fatal attack. However, upon careful examination, it was determined that there was no evidence to suggest that the offense was committed solely because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. As per legal precedent, for Section 3(2)(v) to apply, the offense must be committed against a person solely on the grounds of their caste affiliation. Since this element was not established in the case, the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act was deemed unsustainable. In conclusion, the Supreme Court modified the conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. The Appellant had already served a significant portion of the sentence, leading to a decision to release him based on the time served. The conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of that charge. The appeal was partly allowed, and the Appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
|
