In a recent judgment, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the 33-year-old conviction of four men for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, the court reduced their seven-year sentence to the period already served in prison, noting that the appellants had endured a long mental and financial ordeal. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, in his September 19, 2024 judgment, remarked that the appellants had served time in prison during the investigation and trial from October 3, 1990, to June 15, 1991, and after their conviction from December 7, 1991, to January 18, 1992. The judge also highlighted that the incident occurred more than 34 years ago, when the appellants were about 19-20 years old, acknowledging the prolonged mental and financial struggle they faced over the past decades.
Background
The case dates back to 1991, when the four appellants were convicted by a sessions court under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, and in the event of non-payment, an additional six months of imprisonment. The incident leading to their conviction involved an altercation over cattle grazing, where the complainant, along with his uncle Goverdhan, was passing by a field. The appellants allegedly attacked them with sticks and gandaasi, leading to Goverdhan's death. The complainant managed to escape, but the appellants continued to assault Goverdhan, which ultimately resulted in his demise.
The appellants, however, argued that the prosecution's case was based solely on the testimony of the complainant, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. They contended that due to the dark surroundings, it was unlikely for the complainant to properly identify them. Moreover, they alleged that the complainant himself had killed his uncle, who was deaf and dumb, to gain control over the family property.
Findings
The High Court, in line with the trial court’s findings, rejected the appellants’ defense, noting that their arguments lacked clarity and were contradictory. The court observed that although there was no enmity between the appellants and the deceased, and they did not intend to kill Goverdhan, the injuries they inflicted were with the knowledge that they could lead to his death. As a result, the court concluded that the appellants were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's 1979 ruling in Mohinder Jolly v. State of Punjab, where the accused was found guilty under Section 304 Part-II IPC but was released based on the sentence already served. Following this precedent, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants but directed their release, taking into account the nine months they had already spent in prison between 1990 and 1992 during the investigation and after their conviction.
.jpeg)
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.