1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
J U D G M E N T
Fateh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.516/2008
against the judgment dt.30.6.07 passed by
Addl.Sessions Judge,Bhadra,Distt.Hanumangarh,
in Sessions Case No.27/2005.
Date of Judgment: Nov.04, 2008
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI
Mr.G.R.Punia, for the appellant.
Mr.V.R.Mehta, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE THANVI J.)
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District
2
Hanumangarh, dated 30.6.2007, whereby he convicted
the accused appellant Fateh Singh for the offences
under Sections 302 IPC & 323 IPC and sentenced him
to undergo imprisonment for life & to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- & in default, to further undergo one year’s
R.I. for the offence u/s.302 IPC and six months’ simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- & in default, to
further undergo one month’s S.I. for the offence
u/s.323 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were
ordered to run concurrently.
2. Facts leading to this appeal are that on 22.9.05,
one Hardutt Ram son of Munshi Ram by caste Jat
resident of Dabri, made a statement before the S.H.O.,
Police Station, Bhadra at Govt. Hospital that on
21.9.05, when he & his father Munshi Ram were taking
`Hukka’ at the `Chabutara’, his younger brother Fateh
Singh (accused) came in a drunken state with lathi and
inflicted two lathi blows on the head of his father and
when his daughter Anita came to intervene, he inflicted
3
lathi blow on her person also. The motive of the
incident as per the statement given by the informant
Hardutt Ram, who is brother of accused, was that
accused Fateh Singh wanted to sell his land, to which
his father was objecting. Upon this report, a case under
sections 341 & 323 IPC IPC was registered and on
26.9.05, injured Munshi Ram died in the hospital.
Thereafter, the police filed challan against the accused
appellant for the offences u/ss.302, 323 and 341 IPC
before the learned ACJM, Bhadra, who committed the
case to the court of Sessions. Learned trial Judge
framed charges against the accused u/ss.302 and 323
IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The statement
of the accused was recorded u/s.313 CrPC. He led no
defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial
Judge convicted & sentenced the accused appellant as
above.
4
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant that he does not want to dispute the
incident but his only submission is that this case falls
under Section 304 part II IPC and not under Section
302 IPC, as according to him, the motive of the
incident was that the accused wanted to sell his land,
to which deceased Munshi Ram, who was father of
accused, objected and as a result, the accused
appellant inflicted lathi blows on the head. There was
no intention of the accused to kill his father.
4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor
supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.
5. We have re-appreciated the evidence on record.
The main witness of the incident is Hardutt, PW 2, who
lodged the F.I.R., Ex.P.1 before the police by giving his
statement. In the court statement also, he has
supported the contents of the F.I.R. and from his
statement, it appears that the motive was only about
5
selling of land by accused, to which his father objected.
According to this witness, when his father was taking
`Hukka’ at the `Chabutara’, his brother accused Fateh
Singh came and told that he would sell his land and
when his father objected, he inflicted lathi blows and
after five days of the incident, his father died. During
the course of the incident, his daughter Anita also
sustained lathi blow given by accused for which he has
been convicted for the offence under section 323 IPC.
Anita, PW 1 has also supported this version.
6. From the evidence on record, it appears that the
accused was having no intention to kill his father by
inflicting lathi blows on the vital part of the body. It can
safely be said that he was having knowledge that by
this act, the death may likely to be caused. Therefore,
this act of the accused falls under Clause III of Section
299, which defines “culpable homicide not amounting
to murder”, punishable u/s.304 part II IPC vis-a-vis it
can be termed as an act covered under Exception IV of
6
Section 300 IPC, which also provides punishment for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, if the act
is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without
offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner. In the instant case, the fight
took place on account of issue of selling of land by
accused, to which his father objected, upon which the
accused lost his patience and inflicted two lathi blows
on his father’s head. Therefore, in our view, the
contention of the accused appellant that it is a case
falling under Section 304 part II IPC is full of merit.
7. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. While
maintaining the conviction & sentence recorded by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh
vide his judgment dt.30.6.07 against accused appellant
Fateh Singh for the offence u/s.323 IPC with six
months’ S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- & in default,
to further undergo one month’s S.I., his conviction for
7
the offence u/s.302 IPC is altered to Section 304 part
II IPC and he is sentenced to undergo four years’ R.I.
and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to further
undergo six months’ R.I. Accused is in jail, he will
serve out the remaining part of the sentence awarded.
(DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (A.M.KAPADIA), J.
RANKAWAT JK, PS