9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-explanation of injuries on accused Rajender. 2. Contradiction between the statement of Satyanarain (PW-8) recorded by the Magistrate and his testimony in court. 3. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. 4. Liability of Triloki under Section 34 IPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-explanation of injuries on accused Rajender: The court addressed whether the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on accused Rajender could be fatal to its case. The court noted that while the prosecution is not generally required to explain minor injuries on the accused, failure to explain grievous injuries sustained during the same occurrence could cast doubt on the prosecution's version. Rajender had one penetrating wound, three incised wounds, and one lacerated wound, with the penetrating wound deemed grievous. The court referred to the precedent set in *Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v. State of Bihar* and *Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar* but concluded that non-explanation of injuries does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case if the evidence is clear, cogent, and creditworthy. The court found the prosecution witnesses trustworthy and upheld the conviction despite the non-explanation of Rajender's injuries. 2. Contradiction between the statement of Satyanarain (PW-8) recorded by the Magistrate and his testimony in court: The defense argued that the statement of Satyanarain (PW-8) recorded by the Magistrate (Exhibit B) differed from his court testimony, thereby discrediting the prosecution's case. The court examined whether the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, which requires drawing the witness's attention to contradictory parts of their former statement, were complied with. The court found that the Magistrate's testimony did not confirm the authenticity of Exhibit B, and Satyanarain was not properly confronted with the contradictory parts of his statement. Thus, the court ruled that Exhibit B could not be used to impeach Satyanarain's credibility and rejected this contention. 3. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: The defense contended that the assault occurred during a sudden quarrel, invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which would reduce the offense from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC). The court outlined the requirements for Exception 4: a sudden fight, absence of pre-meditation, and no undue advantage or cruelty. It concluded that the accused's actions did not meet these criteria, as they fetched weapons from their land and attacked the unarmed prosecution party. Therefore, the court rejected the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. 4. Liability of Triloki under Section 34 IPC: The court scrutinized whether Triloki shared a common intention with Rajender to commit murder, as required under Section 34 IPC. The evidence showed that Triloki inflicted a non-fatal injury on the leg of the deceased, while Rajender delivered the fatal blow. The court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding Triloki's actions and noted that the prosecution failed to prove an unlawful assembly with a common object to murder. The court concluded that Triloki did not share a common intention with Rajender and could not be convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. Instead, Triloki was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to two years of imprisonment. Conclusion: - The conviction of Rajender under Section 302 IPC was affirmed, but the application of Section 34 IPC was removed. - Triloki's conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was set aside and replaced with a conviction under Section 324 IPC, with a sentence of two years. - All other convictions and sentences for both appellants remained unaltered. - The appeal was thus partly allowed.
|
