CHANDO ALIAS CHANDRAPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDO @ Chandrapal, the appellant herein and with co-accused Mahendei were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur in Sessions case No. 52/2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated June 3, 2002 while acquitting co-accused Mahadei, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on April 13, 2001 the informant Charan Singh (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Udyog Nagar Bharatpur to the effect that on the said day around 4 PM her daughter Rajan was washing clothes and appellant was taking both at the well. Finding herself drenched from the water dropped by the appellant, Rajan raised objection and altercations ensured. In the meanwhile Rajan's brother Bhagwan Singh arrived and asked the appellant to keep restraint. THE appellant got provoked, rushed to his nearby house, came back with knife and thrusted the knife on the chest of Bhagwan Singh, as a result of which Bhagwan Singh became unconscious and was removed to Hospital where he was declared dead. On that report a case under Section 302/109 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur. Charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentence the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) TO invoke Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC four requirements must be satisfied:- (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. In the instant case all these ingredients are found present. The deceased himself had gone to the appellant and after hot exchanges the appellant in a fit of anger brought knife from house and inflicted solitary blow. His act appears to us sudden and unpremeditated. Because of the hot exchanges the appellant appears to have lost his temper and committed crime. There was no previous enmity and the appellant did not take undue advantage of the situation. Taking an overall view of the incident, we are inclined to think that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exception relied upon.