State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal

Brief Background of the case

On April 10^th, the two judge bench in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal allowed the appeal filed against the order of the judgment delivered by the Rajasthan High Court. The judgment delivered by the high court sentenced the respondent under Section 304(1) IPC instead of Section 302 and the present appeal lies against this judgment.

Bench

Justice Shah, Justice L. Nageshwara Rao

Facts of the case

On 26^th January of 2008, the accused kanhaiya lal attacked raju on the head with an axe and ran away while the deceased Raju succumbed to the injuries and died. After the investigations by the police, the case came to be tried in the learned session’s court where the accused was charged with Section 302 of Indian Penal Code which deals with the punishment for murder and life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10, 000.

The judgment delivered by Trial court was altered by the High Court when the accused preferred an appeal in the High Court after being aggrieved by the Judgment of trial court. High Court convicted the accused under Section 304 (1) IPC instead of Section 302.

The case before Supreme Court has arose out of appeal filed against the order of the judgment delivered by the High Court converting the punishment of the accused from Section 302 to Section 304(1) of IPC.

Issue

Whether the Accused shall be convicted under Section 302 or Section 304(1) IPC and whether High Court is justified in doing so?

Observations

High Court changed the conviction of the accused from Section 302 to Section 304(1) of IPC on the basis of certain reasons. One of the reasons was that the deceased died due to single injury on his head by the axe completely ignoring the fact that axe is a deadly weapon.

Another reason given by the High Court was that the deceased and the accused had an altercation and there was no intention for the accused.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court heard both the parties at length and came to the conclusion that High Court’s judgment was perverse and the reason given by High Court that the deceased suffered a single injury on his head cannot be a ground for conversion of conviction charges from Section 302 to 304(1) IPC. The fact that the blow was caused on a vital part of the body such as head with fatality falls within the definition of murder under Section 300 IPC.

Judgment

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court has made a blunder in converting the conviction charges from Section 302 to 304 (1) of IPC and the interference of this court is necessary to rectify the blunder in the interest of justice setting aside the judgment by the High Court and restoring the original judgment delivered by the trial court.

Read the full judgment here: https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/530/530_2015_Judgement_10-Apr-2019.pdf