Rajasthan High Court
Rajnesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp ... on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
[2023:RJ-JP:16713-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1531/2016
Rajnesh Kumar S/o Prem Singh, R/o Samari Police Station
Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur At Present In Sevar Jail, Bharatpur
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta
Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chouhan
Mr. Anoop Meena
For State : Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
Reserved on 31/07/2023
Pronounced on 04/08/2023
(Per Hon'ble Justice Pankaj Bhandari)
1. Accused/ appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved
by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.11.2016, whereby, trial Court has acquitted the accused for
offence under Sections 326-A & 354 IPC and has convicted the
accused for offence under Section 302 IPC and has been
sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and on
non-payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that Kartar
Singh (PW-1) filed a written report (Ex.P-1), wherein It was
mentioned that on 28.09.2013, he alongwith his wife Lalita @
Laltesh were going to Agra from Nagla Mahadev by train. Her wife
[2023:RJ-JP:16713-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLA-1531/2016]
alighted at Railway Station Rajamandi and told him that she will
return in the evening. It was mentioned in the complaint that in
the evening, a call from mobile No.08193028805 of his wife came
on mobile No.09759178582 belonging to Mamta, his daughter in-
law. Lalita informed her that she was calling from Padi Ki
Nagariya, Agra and after some time, she will reach the house and
subsequently, her phone got shut off. In the evening, information
was received that Lalita was lying in injured condition near the
road of village Samari. Complainant, his father-in-law and other
relatives reached the hospital. In the complaint, enmity with Prem
Singh, brother of father-in-law was mentioned.
3. On the basis of said report, police registered FIR
No.495/2013 (Ex. P.38) under Sections 326-A & 307 of IPC. Lalita
@ Laltesh died during treatment on 09.10.2013, upon which,
Section 302 IPC was added. Police after due investigation filed
challan under Sections 326-A, 307, 354 & 302 of IPC. Trial Court
framed charges under the aforementioned Sections. Accused
denied the charges and sought trial. Upon which, prosecution
examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also
recorded. In defence, DW-1 (Manoj) was examined. Trial Court
after hearing the parties, acquitted the accused for offence under
Sections 326-A & 354 IPC and convicted and sentenced the
accused under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by which, the present
appeal has been preferred.
4. It is contended by counsel for the accused/ appellant
that the deceased received only 5% burns and later on, expired
after ten days due to septicemia. Thus, trial Court has committed
[2023:RJ-JP:16713-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLA-1531/2016]
grave illegality in convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC. It
is further contended by counsel for the accused that he would not
like to press the appeal on merits, if his conviction is altered to
Section 304 part II IPC.
5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has very rightly
conceded that the case of appellant would not come within the
purview of Section 302 IPC and at most, his conviction would fall
under Section 304 Part II IPC.
6. We have considered the contentions and have perused
the record as well as admission and discharge register of the
deceased.
7. As per the statement of PW-23 (Dr. Phool Singh
Choudhary), the deceased sustained a total of 15% burns. He has
admitted that in 15% burns, the possibility of death is minimal.
PW-26 (Dr. Deepali Pathak) has stated that only 5.5% of the body
parts were burnt. The cause of burns was not acid. She has also
admitted that injuries which were found on the body of the
deceased, were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
8. In view of the clear statement of doctors, burns caused
to the deceased were not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause her death. The deceased died after ten days of the incident
due to septicemia, hence, the case would not fall within the ambit
of Section 302 IPC. The learned Trial Court has clearly erred in
convicting and sentencing the accused for offence under Section
302 IPC.
9. Learned counsel for the accused/ appellant has not
pressed the appeal on merits and his only argument is that since
[2023:RJ-JP:16713-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLA-1531/2016]
burns were caused only to the extent of 5%, the case would not
travel beyond Section 304 part II IPC and that accused has
already remained in custody for a period of nine years and ten
months.
10. We are of the considered view that there was no
intention to cause death and since doctors have also opined that
the injuries were not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death, at most it may be inferred that he had knowledge
that the inflammable substance that he had thrown on the
deceased, may result in her death.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2016 of the trial
Court is modified. The conviction and sentence of accused/
appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside and
instead, appellant is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-
II of IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
12. Appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in
accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Registrar
(Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect
that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this
judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice
thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The bail bond
will be effective for a period of six months.
13. Second Application for Suspension of sentence stands
disposed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
CHANDAN /
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
