KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant Kartar Singh under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 7.9.2013 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Anupgarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial court for short) in Sessions Case No.3/2010 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondent no.2 Manga Singh @ Mangal Singh from the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted the said accused respondent no.2 under Section 304 part II IPC and passed the sentence for 10 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. As per the facts of the case, a criminal case was registered against the respondent no.2 upon statement given by the injured Kapil Dev under treatment on 6.10.2009 at Anupgarh in which the injured Kapil Dev alleged that today at 9.30 p.m. I and Manga Singh @ Mangal Singh were standing at the bus stand, at that time, the accused Manga Singh @ Mangal Singh driver of the Tempo used filthy language then I said why you are using abusive language, Manga Singh @ Mangal Singh took out an iron rod from his Tempo and inflicted injury on my head. On aforesaid statement of injured, the FIR was registered at Police Station Anupgarh under Section 341 and 323 IPC against the accused Manga Singh @ Mangal Singh but after 2 days on 8.10.2009, Kapil Dev expired during treatement, therefore, the Investigating Officer added the offence under Section 302 IPC and after usual investigation, filed challan against the respondent no.2 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 341 IPC.

(2.) The learned trial court after framing the charges under Section 302 IPC concluded the trial and after trial, finally decided the case and gave finding that it is not a case for offence under Section 302 IPC but accused is guilty for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and convicted the accused respondent no.2 for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and passed the sentence of 10 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

(3.) In this appeal, the complainant-appellant is challenging the judgment to the extent of convicting accused-respondent no.2 under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of under Section 302 IPC. The learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in consonance with law and has wrongly convicted the respondent no.2 for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, whereas as per the evidence on record, it is a case punishable for offence under Section 302 IPC, therefore, the impugned judgment may be quashed to that extent.