Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4586 (ALL)

Ramvijay v. State of U. P.

2026-03-17

Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh I

body2026
JUDGMENT : Chandra Dhari Singh, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgement and order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2015 arising out of case crime No. 525 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC, police station Kaptanganj, district Kushinagar whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant-Ramvijay to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) under section 302 IPC. Facts of the case 2. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present appeal are that a written report was given by Ram Rakshha to the Station House Officer, police station Kaptanganj, district Kushinagar that he was married to Sonmati and from their wedlock one boy and a girl were born. Wife of the first informant died about 18 years ago. The marriage of Ramvijay, brother of the first informant, was solemnized with one Indira Devi. After the death of wife of the first informant, both first informant and his brother Ramvijay by mutual consent started living with Indira Devi as husband and wife. Indira Devi had three daughters aged about 16, 14 and 8 years and all of them are living in a joint family. On the date of occurrence, the first informant had gone to bank of river to get the sand out. All the children were at home. In the night some altercation took place between Indira Devi and Ramvijay due to which Ramvijay assaulted Indira Devi with spade on her neck, resulting in her death. Ramvijay fled from the spot and the body of Indira Devi is lying in the house. 3. After registration of the case, the law set into motion. Since, the Station House Officer of the concerned police station was not present, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-7, SI Arvind Mishra, who was posted at police station Kaptanganj, district Kushinagar. He copied the FIR in the case diary and rushed to the spot and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared inquest report in the presence of witnesses of inquest. He inspected the spot on the pointing out of the first informant and recovered the weapon of assault in the presence of Ram Rakshha, Lallan Prasad and Shri Ram Singh and prepared memo thereof. He inspected the spot on the pointing out of the first informant and recovered the weapon of assault in the presence of Ram Rakshha, Lallan Prasad and Shri Ram Singh and prepared memo thereof. He also collected bloodstained and plain earth and kept it in two different container and prepared memos thereof. 4. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken up by PW-8, Jaisraj Yadav. He arrested the accused at 08:30 hours on 15.3.2015 and recorded his statement. The accused confessed to his crime. PW-8, Jaisraj Yadav after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant on 07.4.2015 under Section 302 IPC. 5. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2015. Learned Sessions Judge, Kushinagar vide order dated 03.6.2015 framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. PW-1, Ram Rakshha is the first informant of the case, PW-2, Lallan, PW-3, Raju, PW-4, Geeta have been examined as witnesses of facts, PW-5, Smt. Sona Devi is the witness of inquest, PW-6, Dr. Bhavnath Pandey, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, PW-7, SI Arvind Mishra, who conducted initial investigation and PW-8, Jaisraj Yadav, the investigating officer, who submitted charge sheet. 7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which he denied the charges levelled against him and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 8. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar at Padrauna after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above. 9. Hence this appeal. Submission on behalf of the appellant 10. 8. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar at Padrauna after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above. 9. Hence this appeal. Submission on behalf of the appellant 10. Learned counsel for appellant-accused at the very outset submits that he restricts his argument only to the extent for conversion of the sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC and submits that since, there was no premeditation and the incident took place in a heat of passion, considering the injuries received by the deceased, the case shall not traverse beyond the purview of Section 304 I.P.C. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that motive to commit the incident in this case is absent. Submissions on behalf of the State 12. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Obha, learned Additional Government Advocate-I representing the State submitted that the accused caused injury by spade on the neck of the deceased, which resulted in her death and there was no grave or sudden provocation, the learned Trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Analysis and conclusion 13. Heard Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and leaned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 14. As an abundant precaution, we have gone through the postmortem report and evidence of the prosecution witnesses. From the perusal of the postmortem report and the evidence of the Medical Officer, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding that the death of the deceased is homicidal. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that it is the appellant who caused injuries to the deceased resulting in her death. 15. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant is liable for the death of the deceased, we will have to now examine whether the offence committed by the appellant would come under the ambit of Section 302 IPC or it can be altered to one under Section 304 IPC as argued by the learned amicus curiae. 16. 15. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant is liable for the death of the deceased, we will have to now examine whether the offence committed by the appellant would come under the ambit of Section 302 IPC or it can be altered to one under Section 304 IPC as argued by the learned amicus curiae. 16. For better appreciation of the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, we would like to refer certain pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point in question insofar as the appellant is concerned. 17. In Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342 , accused on the spur of moment inflicted a knife blow on the chest of the deceased. The injury proved fatal. The doctor opined that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Apex Court observed that quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow on the chest. In these circumstances, it is inadmissible to infer that the accused at least could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. The Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. 18. In K. Ramakoteswara Rao Vs. State of A.P. , 1986 Cr.L.J. 680 , a sudden quarrel arose between the accused and the deceased and the deceased threatened the accused with dire consequences. The accused stabbed the deceased with knife. The Court convicted the accused under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 19. In Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh , (1989)2 SCC 217 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that if on a sudden quarrel a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries out of which only one proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of the Exception provided he has not acted cruelly. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the number of wounds caused during the occurrence in such a situation was not the decisive factor. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the number of wounds caused during the occurrence in such a situation was not the decisive factor. What was important was that the occurrence had taken place on account of a sudden and unpremeditated fight and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Dealing with the provision of Exception 4 to Section 300, Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "..... To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly." 20. In V. Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala , AIR 1992 SC 754 , the accused, as a result of provocation caused in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, chased the deceased to some distance and then gave the single fatal blow, it was held that the whole incident was a continuous sequence. Hence the conviction of the accused was shifted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I IPC. 21. In Bhera Vs. State of Rajasthan , 2000 SCC (Cri) 1230 , accused and the deceased quarreled and while quarreling the accused in anger suddenly took out the knife and gave knife blow on the chest of the deceased which resulted in his death. The Apex Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, instead convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment. 22. In Mochi Raju Vs. The Apex Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, instead convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment. 22. In Mochi Raju Vs. State of Gujarat , JT 2001 (10) SC 398, accused appellant and the deceased started fighting and during the quarrel appellant took out the knife from the pocket and gave one blow to the deceased on his chest. The Apex Court while convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 304 Part II, sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment. 23. In Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327 , the appellant caused two Bhala blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The High Court held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Reversing the view taken by the High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. In cases where after the injured had fallen down, the appellant did not inflict any further injury when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The Court observed: 24. In Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryaba, (2002) 3 SCC 327 , the appellant caused two Bhala blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The High Court held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Reversing the view taken by the High Court this Court held that all fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. In cases where after the injured had fallen down, the appellant did not inflict any further injury when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The Court observed: “...All fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The Court observed: “...All fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. After the injuries were inflicted and the injured had fallen down, the appellant is not shown to have inflicted any other injury upon his person when he was in a helpless position. It is proved that in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight, the accused who was armed with Bhala caused injuries at random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. 25. In Ghapoo Yadav Vs. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a heat of passion there must be no time for the passions to cool down and that the parties had in that case before the Court worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. Apart from the incident being the result of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, the law requires that the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner to be able to claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Whether or not the fight was sudden, was declared by the Court to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.” 26. In Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444 , the Hon'ble Court held thus: "Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre- meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality.” 27. In Sudhakar Vs. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre- meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality.” 27. In Sudhakar Vs. State of U.P. , (2012)8 SC 289, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Going by the narration of the facts disclosed, there was nothing to suggest that there was any premeditation in the mind of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. Taking into account the statement of P.W.1 that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and that whenever he was under the influence of liquor he used to throw the household articles and create a ruckus in the house was a factor which created a heat of passion in the appellant who as a father was not in a position to tolerate the behaviour of his son whose misbehaviour under the influence of liquor was the torment. Therefore, unmindful of the consequences, though not in a cruel manner the appellant inflicted a single blow which unfortunately caused severe damage to the vital organs resulting into the death of the deceased. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, we are convinced that the offence alleged and as found proved against the appellant can be brought under the First Part of Section 304 of IPC. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant, we are only altering the same as falling under Section 304 Part I of IPC in place of Section 302 of IPC. As far as the sentence imposed on the appellant in as much as we reached at the conclusion that the conviction should fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC, taking note of the sentence already undergone, we find from the Imprisonment Certificate that the appellant is in jail from 12.07.2004 and he is 60 year old, P.W.1, who is the wife of the appellant, is left all alone and the appellant having suffered imprisonment for more than eight years, we hold that the sentence already undergone would be sufficient punishment apart from the fine imposed with the default sentence as per the judgment of the Trial Court and as affirmed by the High Court. The appeal stands partly allowed with the above modifications of the charge and the sentence imposed on the appellant.” 28. The appeal stands partly allowed with the above modifications of the charge and the sentence imposed on the appellant.” 28. In the light of the above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, we shall now proceed to consider whether case against the accused-appellant falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC or Section 304 IPC. 29. PW-5, Dr. Bhavnath Pandey, who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased found the following ante-mortem injuries: “1. Incised wound 7.00 x 1.5 cm x muscle deep over dorsum of left thumb and index finger. 2. Incised wound 19 cm x 3 cm x brain cavity deep over back of scalp and neck extending from point 3.00 cm below left ear to a point 2.00 cm above right ear.” 30. On internal examination, doctor found that occipital bone was fractured. Membranes and brain were lacerated in posterior part. The tissues of neck were divided (cut) posteriorly. 31. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was haemorrhage, shock, coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 32. From perusal of the post-mortem report, it is clear that it was a homicidal death and the injuries sustained by the deceased was sufficient to cause death. 33. PW-1, Rohit Kumar, who is the first informant of the case has mentioned in his evidence that his wife died about 18 years prior to the date of occurrence. Accused- appellant is his brother who was married to Indira Devi (deceased). After the death of wife of the first informant, both first informant and his brother-appellant by mutual consent started living with Indira Devi as husband and wife in a joint family. In the night certain altercation took place between Ramvijay-appellant and the deceased, due to which appellant assaulted the deceased by spade over her neck, which resulted in her death. However, in his deposition before the Court, PW-1, Ram Rakshha did not support the prosecution case and stated that in the morning he had gone to bank of river to get the sand out and when he came back, he was told that in the village miscreants have come and on raising noise by the deceased, she was killed by them. 34. 34. The learned Trial Court convicted the appellant on the ground that the appellant was lastly seen in the company of the deceased as he was present in the house with the deceased and fled from the house immediately after the occurrence. Learned Trial Court has also held that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. So far as motive is concerned, learned Trial Court has mentioned that from the perusal of the evidence of PW-1, Ram Rakshha, who is the first informant, PW-4, Geeta, who is the niece of the accused and PW-5, Sona Devi, sister of the accused, it is evident that the deceased was living in the house as wife of both the first informant and the accused-appellant and always altercation took place between the accused and the deceased over sleeping as the deceased refused to sleep with the appellant, which was the motive to commit the murder. 35. Further from the perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that there was no premeditation and the incident took place in a heat of passion and that looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, it is apparent that the appellant has not acted in a cruel and usual manner. 36. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances, in our opinion, should entitle the appellant to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. 37. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the circumstances as enumerated above, the conclusion is irresistible that the death was caused by the acts of the accused- appellant done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as would likely to cause death and, therefore, the offence would squarely come within the ambit of Section 304 part-I IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC. 38. In view of the above conspectus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. This Court is reluctant in endorsing the life imprisonment. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years. Appellant is stated to be in jail since 15.03.2015. This Court is reluctant in endorsing the life imprisonment. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years. Appellant is stated to be in jail since 15.03.2015. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case provided he has completed the modified sentence of ten years. 39. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgement and order dated dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2015. 40. Office is directed to transmit the lower court record along with a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance. 41. Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned amicus curiae shall be a paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) for his assistance to the Court in deciding this appeal.