Latest News
Back
Document:
Conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC should be converted to Section 304 Part I of the Code but the Benefit of doubt in view of the ambiguity and contradictions must go the appellant - Supreme court
In this case of SATISH KUMAR VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA, an appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the High court of Punjab and Haryana. Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction of the present appellant Satish Kumar and one Dhajja Ram for murder of Shamsher under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. The impugned judgment also affirms conviction of Satish Kumar and Dhajja Ram under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Code for which they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Code for which they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. After hearing the case the supreme court observed that there is inconsistency between the dying declaration, medico-legal report Ex-PC and the post mortem report Ex-PG. Further, cross-examination of Dr. R.K. Nandal (PW-4) exposits contradiction as to whether the injury in question was sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. Benefit of doubt in view of the ambiguity and contradictions must go the appellant. In view of the aforesaid, we do not think that the condition and mandate of third clause of Section 300 of the Code that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause death has been proved and established beyond doubt.
Pertinently, it is under this clause alone that the present appellant has been convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 300 of the Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant Satish Kumar is converted from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304 of the Code. Other convictions are maintained and not interfered. Turning to the question of sentence for the offence under Section 304 Part I, we find that the appellant was released on bail vide order dated July 22, 2011, which refers to Jail Custody Certificate dated September 16, 2010 that the appellant had undergone sentence of seven years on the date of issue. The appellant has been on bail since then. We do not think that the appellant should be again incarcerated and sent to jail. The Supreme court held that “ We would, therefore, partly allow the present appeal by converting the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Code for imprisonment to the period already undergone. The appellant would, however, be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which he would undergo simple imprisonment for one month. As stated above, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for other offences is maintained”
Document:
