Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Prasad on 30 October, 2014
Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2008
STATE OF RAJASTHAN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAM PRASAD RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Akshat Anand, learned counsel for
the appellant, and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel
appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the
respondent.
2. On being aggrieved by the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2002 whereby the High
Court has converted the conviction recorded under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to one
under Section 304 Part II IPC in respect of the
respondent and reduced the period of sentence to
period already undergone, that is, approximately six
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajesh Dham
Date: 2014.11.10
17:07:12 IST
Reason:
years, the State has preferred the appeal by special
leave.
2
3. Learned counsel for the appellant – State
would submit that the blow that was inflicted by the
respondent and the nature of injuries caused on the
deceased make out a case under Section 302 IPC, but
the High Court has erroneously converted to one under
Section 304 Part II IPC.
4. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent, submitted that the respondent had
inflicted a singular blow being provoked as the
deceased had abused the wife of the assailant. She
further submitted that the High Court has rightly
converted the conviction to one under Section 304
Part II IPC and there is no reason to interfere.
5. To appreciate the submissions put forth by the
learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to
refer to the injuries sustained by the deceased. The
post mortem report which has been brought on record
shows that the following injuries were sustained by
the deceased:-
“1. “T” shaped lesion present over right
infra scapular region with following
measurements: “7 cm---/---12 cm
/8 cm
The two lesion measuring 7 cm and 8 cm and
12 cm in length with pus and sough formation
with scaring ordinary hard blackish scars.
3
2. One lesion on superior aspect of left
buttock with pus and sough with ordinary hard
blackish scar vertically placed.
3. Lesion. This is in length of 2½ x 2 cm on
outer parts of right eye with blackish scar
ordinarily hard.
4. Lesion 1 x ½ cm over right temporal lose
with blackish scars.
5. Lesion 1 x ¼ cm on right ear primarily
anteriorly.
6. Stitched wound 18 cm in length in middle
line “8 cm –-/--18 cm” and another stitched
wound in continuation to it in mid line going
on right ear mid frontal region done
surgically. Sub scalp Haematoma present over
both frontal, both parietal region skull –
missing of skull bone in an area of 16 x 8 cm
– Right fronto parietal region (Craniotomy).
Functioning of both anterior Cranial fosse.”
6. Though in our considered opinion, regard being
had to the nature of injuries, even if the genesis of
occurrence is accepted, the conviction cannot be
under Section 304 Part II IPC, but has to be under
Section 304 Part I IPC.
7. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of
conviction of the High Court from Section 304 Part II
IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Having modified the
judgment, we think it apt that the appropriate
4
sentence to be imposed would be eight years and,
accordingly, we so direct.
8. Be it stated, we impose eight years of
sentence rigorous imprisonment regard being had to
the age of the respondent as well as the time that
has passed by in the meantime.
9. The respondent shall be taken into custody
forthwith to serve the rest of the sentence.
10. Before we part with the case, we appreciate
the assistance rendered by Mr. Anitha Shenoy, learned
Amicus Curiae, who assisted us with able conviction
and persuasion.
11. Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed
to the extent indicated above.
.......................J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI; .............................J.
OCTOBER 30, 2014 (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
5
ITEM NO.114 COURT NO.5 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 895/2008
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAM PRASAD Respondent(s)
(with appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to
file additional documents and exemption from filing O.T. and
office report)
Date : 30/10/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
For Appellant(s) Mr. Akshat Ahand, Adv. for
Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. (A.C.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in the signed order.
The respondent shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve the rest of the sentence.
(RAJESH DHAM) (RENUKA SADANA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(signed order is placed on file)