State of Rajasthan  INSC 63 (5 February 1993)
K. Jayachandra (J) Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) Singh N.P. (J)
1994 AIR 610 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 39
appellant Murli alias Denny is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to
imprisonment for life. The prosecution case is as follows:
appellant had a shop in the bazaar. The deceased Shiv Rattan alias Tenny also
belonged to the same place.
deceased was a man of violent nature and used to terrorise people by use of
force and violence. He was a terror for common people and he was convicted and
sentenced in connection with several cases, particularly, relating to gambling.
The Police authorities initiated proceedings against him under Goonda Act. On 10-9-1985, at about 11.25 p.m., according to the prosecution case, the deceased went to the shop of
the appellant and began to hurl abuses.
got enraged the accused inflicted some stab injuries on the deceased with a
knife. The accused was seen proceeding to the police station, and on the way,
he met PW 2, PW 3 and PW 7 before whom he is alleged to have confessed that he
had finished the deceased an unsocial element. He then went to the residence of
the police officer (PW 9) and on his direction, the accused thereafter
proceeded to the police station. Meanwhile, PW 9 also reached the police
station. Then PW 2 and PW 3 also came to the police station and in their
presence the accused stated that the deceased came at his shop and abused him virulently
and having been provoked suddenly, he inflicted injuries on the deceased.
information was, however, recorded by the SHO which was attested by PW 2 and PW
3, which later became the FIR in 40 this case. The SHO thereafter proceeded to
the scene of occurrence, held the inquest over the dead body and sent the same
for postmortem. The doctor (PW 4), who conducted the postmortem, noticed some
incised injuries and stab wounds, and on internal examination, he found the
injuries crossed to the stomach and heart, which proved fatal. The accused was
arrested and the knife was also recovered. After completion of the
investigation the charge-sheet was laid.
prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 7 to whom the
accused is alleged to have made an extra judicial confession. PW 1 had turned
hostile. PWs 2, 3 and 7 merely stated that the accused in an agitated mood was
seen going with blood-stained weapon. He also told them that he had finished
the deceased. These witnesses did not, however, give the actual words alleged
to have been stated in the confession, by the accused. The trial court, as well
as the High Court, relying on the circumstantial evidence, particularly, on the
conduct of the accused in going to the police station with blood-stained weapon
and the other circumstances which are in the nature of 'res gestae' and finding
the dead body immediately pursuant to the information given by the accused held
that the accused was guilty of the murder and accordingly convicted him. At
this juncture, it is necessary to refer one of the submissions made before the
Learned counsel who appeared for the appellant before the courts below
contended that FIR which is in the nature of confession could not be proved
against the accused as the same was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Learned counsel, however, wanted to rely on a part of the statement in the FIR
wherein the accused has stated that the deceased came near his shop and hurled
the abuses virulently and having been provoked in a sudden manner, he inflicted
injuries. The courts below were not prepared to give the benefit of the
Exception 1 to Section 300, since the statement as a whole should be eschewed
from the consideration.
Having examined the circumstances on record, we are satisfied that it was the
accused who inflicted injuries on the deceased person, as a result of which he
died. But the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Sibal submits that there are any
number of circumstances indicating that the accused acted on a grave and sudden
provocation and, therefore, Exception1 to Section 300 is attracted. We find
considerable force in this submission. To start with, the prosecution evidence
itself indicates that the deceased was a man of violent nature and had no
regard for law and was creating terror and fear in the minds of common people.
In such an aggressive mood, he must have gone to the shop of the accused. As to
what exactly preceded the attack is not borne out by the evidence. However,
there is a clear indication in the first statement given by the accused himself
which formed the FIR in this case to the effect that the deceased in an
aggressive manner went to the shop of the accused and showered virulent abuses.
It may be mentioned here that we are not using the statement of the accused
before the SHO for any purpose in favour of prosecution and against the
accused. The only admission which we find in the statement in favour of the
accused is being taken into account to examine whether the case falls under
Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, particularly, in view of the fact that there is
no other evidence disclosing as to how the quarrel ensued and attack 41 took
place. Having carefully considered the entire material, we are of the view that
Exception 1 to Section 300 is attracted in this case. The Exception lays down:
homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of
self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person
who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or
accident." This Exception is no doubt subject to certain limitations.
instant case, the provocation is not sought or provoked by the accused. The
medical evidence also shows that most of the injuries were found on the hips
and the possibility of having received injuries by the deceased during
grappling cannot be ruled out. In such cases it cannot be said that the accused
caused the injuries by way of an excuse for killing the deceased. Accordingly,
we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal
Code and imprisonment for life awarded thereunder and, instead, we convict him
under Section 304 Part 1, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
Subject to the modification of sentence as mentioned above, the appeal is