JHAPTU RAMversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

                     (2014] 4 S.C.R. 55


                        JHAPTU RAM                                A
                              v.
             STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1223 of 2012)
                    FEBRUARY 26, 2014
                                                                  B
  [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder - Altercation between
the appellant and his son - Intervention by the deceased-
victim and his mother staying next door - Gun shot fire by        C
appellant at the deceased resulting in his death - Conviction
uls.302 by trial court, upheld by High Court - On appeal, held:
Undoubtedly, it was a case wherein the deceased and his
mother were called to intervene and pacify the matter - An
altercation took place between the appellant and the              D
deceased - No evidence to show that there was any prior
intention of the appellant to kill the deceased - As per the
medical and ocular evidence, there was only one gun shot
fired by the appellant which proved to be fatal for deceased -
M<?re so, prosecution failed to marshal any evidence to show      E
that the gun was in the hand of the appellant when the
deceased entered his house - In such peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, conviction u/s.302 is set aside and
appellant is convicted uls.304 Part-/ and awarded sentence
of ten years.                                                     F
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1223 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2009 of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal G
No. 104 of 2007.

    T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Urmila Sirur for the Appellant.

                             55
                                                                  H
      56       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


 A         Ajay Marwah, Pragati Neekhra for the Respondent.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered

                                   ORDER

 8         1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the
      impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the
      High Court of Hlmachal Pradesh at Shimla dismissing the
      Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2007 and affirming the judgment
      and order of Fast Track Court, Mandi (H.P.) in Session Trial
 c    Nos. 32 of 2004 and 80 of 2005 by which and whereunder, the
      appellant stood convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal
      Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and has been
      awarded life sentence alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default
      of payment of fine, to further undergo one year imprisonment.
 D         2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
      as follows:

           A. As per the prosecution, an altercation took place
      between the appellant and his son on 14.6-.2004 at about 9.00
_ E   P.M. The daughter of the appellant named Shukari Devi called
      Devinder Kumar (deceased) and his mother Bhagti Devi
      (PW.1 ), who were the next door neighbour. Devinder Kumar
      (deceased) and Bhagti Devi (PW.1) reached the house of the
      appellant and some altercation took place between the
 F    appellant and the deceased. The accused fired at him and after
      receiving a gun shot injury, he fell down and died. The incident
      was witnessed by Bhagti Devi (PW.1) and Dina Nath (PW.3),
      son of accused/appellant. After hearing the noise of the gun shot
      other neighbours also reached the spot. An FIR was lodged at
 G    Police Station: Joginder Nagar on 15.6.2005 under Section
      302 IPC and the appellant was arrested.

          8. After investigation of the case, a chargesheet was filed
      and as the appellant denied his involvement, the trial
      commenced. After conclusion of the trial, placing reliance on
 H
 JHAPTU RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                     57


the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3, the trial court convicted the       A
appellant and sentenced as referred to hereinabove.

    C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the
High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment
and order dated 4.12.2009.                                         B

     Hence, this appeal.

     3. Shri T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Ms. Urmila Sirur, learned Amicus
Curiae, has submitted that the prosecution has not led any         C
evidence to show that the offence committed by the appellant
was pre-mediated. Nor it has been established by leading an
evidence that after picking an altercation with the deceased,
the appellant gone into the house and brought a gun. In this
respect, there is no evidence on record and it is a case wherein   o
the appellant could be convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

     4. Per contra, Shri Ajay Marwah, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the appeal
contending that as the court below has concurrently held that it
is a case of simple murder, therefore conviction under Section     E
302 IPC to be upheld and it is not a case where the conviction
may be converted into Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence
may be reduced.

      5. We have considered the matter, undoubtedly, it was a      F
case wherein the deceased and his mother Bhagti Devi
(PW.1) had been called to intervene and pacify the matter. It
is also clear from the evidence on record that an altercation
took place between the appellant and the deceased. There is
no iota of evidence to show that there was any prior intention     G
of the appellant to kill the deceased. As per the medical and
ocular evidence, there was only gun shot fired by the appellant
which proved to be fatal for deceased. More so, the prosecution
failed to marshal any evidence to show that the gun was in his
hand when the deceased entered his house. In such peculiar         H
    58       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the
    submissions advanced by Shri Sreyas, learned counsel for the
    appellant.

         6. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
B   the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed
    partly. Hence, the conviction of the appellant is set aside under
    Section 302 IPC and is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC
    and award sentence of ten years. However, the amount of fine
    remains intact. With these observations, the appeal stands
C   disposed of.

    D.G.                                       Appeal disposed of.