Cr. Appeal No. 25/2013, M.P. No. 01/2016, M.P. No. 42/2013 and Confirm No. 14/2013. Case: Pawan Kumar Vs State of J&K. Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Case Number:Cr. Appeal No. 25/2013, M.P. No. 01/2016, M.P. No. 42/2013 and Confirm No. 14/2013
Party Name:Pawan Kumar Vs State of J&K
Counsel:For Appellant: P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate and J.A. Hamal, Advocate and For Respondents: R.S. Jamwal, Dy. Advocate General
Judges:Mohammad Yaqoob Mir and Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Issue:Criminal Law
Judgement Date:February 06, 2017
Court:Jammu and Kashmir High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

  1. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban vide judgment impugned dated 28.02.2013, on completion of the trial, has convicted the appellant for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 RPC and acquitted him of the charge under Section 7/27 Arms Act.

  2. After hearing on the quantum of sentence, vide order dated 28.02.2013 has sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) under Section 302 RPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) under Section 449 RPC. Both the sentences to run concurrently. The period of detention undergone during investigation and trial to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 302 RPC and one month under Section 449 RPC. The amount of fine, if realised to be paid as a compensation to the wife of the deceased.

  3. Proceedings of the case have been submitted in terms of Section 374 Cr.P.C. which stands registered as Confirm. No. 14/2013. Appeal preferred by the appellant has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 25/2013.

  4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the requirements under Section 300 of RPC are not satisfied as the death caused was not intended. The evidence as produced suggests that the act done could not even come under the Part-I and Part-II instead falls under the Part-III of Section 299 RPC. Accused had no knowledge that his alleged act was to cause death of the victim. While referring to the medical evidence, more particularly, the statement of P.W. 14 Dr. Anirudh Singh, placed reliance on the judgments reported in AIR 1981 SC 1441, AIR 1968 SC 867 and AIR 1968 SC 1390. Further argued that in case his submission does not prevail, then he may project case for acquittal of the appellant.

  5. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the requirements of Section 300 RPC are fully satisfied. Learned trial court has consistent with law rightly convicted the accused under Section 302 RPC and proper sentence has been awarded.

  6. For appreciating the rival submissions, it would be quite advantageous to precisely notice as to what the prosecution case is and what is the medical evidence.

  7. The case set up by the prosecution is that the relation between Rajinder Kumar (deceased) and Pawan Kumar alias Nikku (accused) were strained. On 05.01.2008 at 5 PM, accused after entering into the house of the Rajinder Kumar (deceased) assaulted him with the sharp edged weapon. After causing serious injuries he had escaped from the place of occurrence. The matter was reported to the police, case was registered as FIR No. 03/2008, P/s. Batote for offences punishable under Section 302/449 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act.

  8. On completion of investigation, charge sheet (challan) was filed. The accused was put to trial by the trial court vide its order dated 27.06.2008 for commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 449 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act.

  9. Prosecution in support of its case has produced 18 witnesses which include P.W. 14 Dr. Anirudh Singh who on examination and after conducting post-mortem recorded as to what was the injury on the person of the dead body, i.e.

    "A single stab wound about 15 c.m...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL