Skip to content


Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 131 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC642; 1981CriLJ30; 1980Supp(1)SCC91; 1980(12)LC578(SC)
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302 and 304
AppellantOm Prakash
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
- [j.l. kapur,; m. hidayatullah and; s.k. dass, jj.] n, a coparcener of the hindu undivided family of g, carrying on business in kathiwar, then outside british india, entered into a partnership with strangers in bombay in 1944. a total sum of rs. 1,,50,000 was remitted to n from the undivided family funds and utilised as capital in the partnership business. n's brother joined the partnership in bombay. the partnership started another firm in banaras and a third brother of n joined the firm. for the year of assessment 1945-46 the income-tax officer held that the hindu undivided family of g was resident in the taxable territories and included the said sum in the income of the family under s. 4(1)(b)(iii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, as having been brought into or received in..........a contrary view and convicted the appellant under section 302 ipc with the inevitable sentence of life imprisonment. we are inclined to take a more view on the facts and hold that the appellant was guilty under section 304 part ii ipc. in the circumstances, we cannot overlook the foot that the blow was on a vital part and that a life has been lost. therefore, we sentence the appellant. to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. it is represented by counsel for the appellant that the convict may be kept in the district jail, gurgaon so that his wife and child may be able to meet him occasionally. we think that in such cases humans considerations are important and family ties must be preserved instead of dehumanising attitudes and distances being inflicate. we are sure the authorities will.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. We are not called upon to go into the details, having regard to the general circumstances present in this ease. It is true that an occurrence took place, which ended fatally and the appellant was the aggressar. The short question is whether the offence under Section 302 or under Section 304 Part II is made out, Undoubtedly there was a quarrel, whether it amounts to a fight within the meaning of Section 302 or not. Insensed by the situation the appellant gave a blow with a stick. It fell on a vulnerable part of the victim's body, resulting in his death. It is a marginal case where the Sessions Court held that the evidence was one under Section 304 IPC and awarded a sentence of five and a half years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court task a contrary view and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC with the inevitable sentence of life imprisonment. We are inclined to take a more view on the facts and hold that the appellant was guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. In the circumstances, we cannot overlook the foot that the blow was on a vital part and that a life has been lost. Therefore, we sentence the appellant. to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It is represented by counsel for the appellant that the convict may be kept in the District Jail, Gurgaon so that his wife and child may be able to meet him occasionally. We think that in such cases humans considerations are important and family ties must be preserved instead of dehumanising attitudes and distances being inflicate. We are sure the authorities will take this compassionate view and keep him in the District Jail, Gurgaon.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //