# Ram Khelawan & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 43
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 1982
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-khelawan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-48541
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 302/34 &
324-challenge to -conviction-all the three
accused participated in commission of the
offence as two of them caught hold of the
deceased and one gave fatal blow with
knife on neck, as a result, deceased diedas per doctor opinion injury no. 1 on neck
was sufficient in ordinary course to cause
death-no hard and fast rule that in case of
single injury, provisions of section 302 IPC
would not be attracted- it depends upon
the facts and circumstances of each casethe essence of section 34 IPC is consensus
of minds of persons participating in a
criminal action to bring about a particular
result-It does not create any distinct
offence but lays down the principle of
constructive criminal liability-The case has
been proved beyond all reasonable doubts
by
the
statements
of
prosecution
witnesses.(Para 1 to 25)

B. The nature of injury, the part of the
body where it is caused, the weapon used
in causing such injury are the indicators.
of the fact whether the accused caused
death with an intention of causing death
or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of
universal application that whenever the
death occurs on account of a single blow,
Section 302 IPC is ruled out.(Para 24)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Ram Khelawan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
43
conviction can be recorded. The trial Court
has not committed any error much less
manifest error in recording the conviction
of the accused appellant Chhunna.

43. On the basis of above discussion,
it is clear that the prosecution has
successfully
proved
the
manner
of
occurrence that accused Chhunna was real
assailant who inflicted the fatal blow on
scrotum, inguinal region of the deceased.
The nature of ante-mortem injuries of the
deceased were such that it could cause his
death in all probabilities. This shows that
accused Chhunna had every intention and
knowledge that injury caused by him would
result in the death of the deceased.
Therefore, the prosecution has successfully
proved the guilt of accused Chhunna for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
It is a murder made with cool mind in a
planned way four hours after altercation on
the same day. It is not a case of grave and
sudden provocation.

44. Co-accused Dinesh was not found
guilty by the trial Court and was acquitted
for the charge under under Section 302/34
IPC. The State of Uttar Pradesh had not
filed any appeal against the acquittal of coaccused Dinesh and no such appeal has
been brought before us.

45. On the basis of above discussion,
we are of the view that the judgment and
orders of the trial court dated 12.03.1996
and 13.03.1996 passed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions
Trial No.173 of 1995 "State vs. Chhunna
and others", Police Station Sheorajpur,
District Kanpur Dehat, convicting and
sentencing the accused appellant Chhunna
to undergo life imprisonment under Section
302 IPC with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default
thereof, to undergo one year rigorous
additional
imprisonment,
is
hereby
confirmed.

46. During trial, the accused appellant
Chhunna was on bail. During appeal, the
appellant Chhunna was on bail. The
appellant was arrested on 21.01.2020 in
execution of the non-bailable-warrant and
is detained in the District Jail, Mati, Kanpur
Dehat at present. The accused appellant
Chhunna is directed to serve out the
remaining period of his sentence. The bail
bonds filed by the appellant are forfeited
and sureties are discharged.

47. The appeal is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed. The appeal is
accordingly, dismissed.

48. Certify this judgment to the Court
below immediately for compliance. The
compliance report be submitted through the
Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.
----------
(2022)05ILR A43
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 1982

Ram Khelawan & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Ram Chandra, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,
Girish Kumar Pande, Pawan Kumar Tiwari,
Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi (A.C.)

Counsel for the Resondent:
Govt. Advocate
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 302/34 &
324-challenge to -conviction-all the three
accused participated in commission of the
offence as two of them caught hold of the
deceased and one gave fatal blow with
knife on neck, as a result, deceased diedas per doctor opinion injury no. 1 on neck
was sufficient in ordinary course to cause
death-no hard and fast rule that in case of
single injury, provisions of section 302 IPC
would not be attracted- it depends upon
the facts and circumstances of each casethe essence of section 34 IPC is consensus
of minds of persons participating in a
criminal action to bring about a particular
result-It does not create any distinct
offence but lays down the principle of
constructive criminal liability-The case has
been proved beyond all reasonable doubts
by
the
statements
of
prosecution
witnesses.(Para 1 to 25)

B. The nature of injury, the part of the
body where it is caused, the weapon used
in causing such injury are the indicators.
of the fact whether the accused caused
death with an intention of causing death
or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of
universal application that whenever the
death occurs on account of a single blow,
Section 302 IPC is ruled out.(Para 24)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu Vs St. of Punj. (2022)
2 SCC 545

2. Stalin Vs St. Rprtd. by the Inspr of Police
(2020) 9 SCC 524

3. Virsa Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1958) AIR SC 465

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. This criminal appeal under Section
374(2) CrPC arises out of judgment and
order dated 31st August, 1982 passed by
the
IVth Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.170 of 1981,
convicting
accused,
Ram
Khelawan
(appellant no. 1) under Section 302 IPC
and
accused
Budhu
and
Ram
Dutt
(appellant no. 2) under Section 302/34 IPC
and sentenced them to undergo life
imprisonment. Accused, Ram Khelwan
(appellant no. 1) had been further convicted
under Section 324 IPC and accused, Budhu
and Ram Dutt (appellant No. 2) had been
convicted under Section 324/34 IPC and
sentenced to undergo two years rigorous
imprisonment.

2. Appeal filed by accused, Budhu,
being Criminal Appeal No.685 of 1982,
who was also convicted and sentenced, as
noted above, has been dismissed by this
Court vide judgment and order dated
06.04.2018. While dismissing the said
criminal appeal, this Court had observed as
under:-

"We find that there are consistent
statements of prosecution witnesses on
record which are also corroborated by the
injury reports as well as the opinion of the
doctor with regard to receiving fatal blow
by the deceased as well as the injuries
received by Ketar. The case of the
prosecution that Buddhoo had come armed
with knife giving challenge that he would
not allow Ram Beti to be married in Village
Kharika and then Ram Khelawan took knife
from Buddhoo and gave knife blow at the
left hand of Ketar and thereafter Ram Dutt
and Buddhoo caught hold of Ram Deen by
his hands and Ram Khelawan gave him
knife blow near his neck, go to establish
that all the accused have common intention
of committing the offence of murder.
Therefore, they are liable to be convicted,
having the common intention of committing
5 All. Ram Khelawan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
45
the offence, as has been proved beyond all
reasonable doubts by the statements of the
prosecution witnesses."

3. As per prosecution case, Ramdin
(deceased) his brother Ketar (injured),
accused, complainant and witnesses belong
to 'Mangta Community'. All these persons
were living in their huts, near Banthara
Market.

4. Ramdin and Ketar were having
sister, Sarjoo, whose husband died and, she
was living in a nearby hut. Her elder
daughter, Samrata was married to Budhu.
Marriage of her younger daughter, Rambeti
was arranged and settled by Ramdin and
Ketar in village, Kharika. On the date of
incident, Barat was to come as marriage
was scheduled. At around, 8.30 p.m., when
music was being played, two petromaxes
were burning and arrangements were being
made of food etc., for the guests etc.,
accused Budhu, followed by present
appellants, came there having an open knife
in his hand. He challenged that he would
not allow Rambeti to get married in village
Kharika from where Barat was coming.

5. It is said that when deceased,
Ramdin and his brother, injured, Ketar tried
to caution and make him understand not to
make
any
disturbance/turbulence
in
marriage, Ram Khelawan snatched the
knife from Budhu and gave knife blow on
left hand of Ketar. Ramdin intervened to
save his brother and apprehend, accused,
Ram Khelawan, Budhu and Ram Dutt
caught hood of his hands and Ram
Khelawan gave knife blow on neck of
Ramdin, who instantly fell down. All the
accused fled away from the place of
occurrence towards Banthara Market.

6. FIR of the incident was lodged on
same day at Banthara Police Station.

7. Injured Ramdin and Ketar were
sent to Sarojini Nagar Primary Heath
Center for medical aid. Since Ramdin's
condition was serious, he was referred to
Balrampur Hospital where he died next
morning
i.e.
on
29.11.1980.
After
investigating the offence, charge-sheet was
filed. The accused denied charges and
demanded for trial.

8. Deceased, Ramdin was initially
medically examined at 9.30 p.m. and
Doctor found incised wound 3/4"x1/4" into
muscle deep on the lower part of front of
middle of neck with bleeding.

9. Injured, Ketar was medically
examined at 12.30 a.m. on intervening
night of 27/28.11.1980, and the Doctor
found him to have suffered incised wound
1"x1/4" into muscle deep on the dorsal
surface of left hand and one abrasion
1/4"x1/8" on the tip of left middle finger.

10. During the course of postmortem
examination of deceased, Ramdin, which
was conducted on 29.11.1980, following
antemortem injures were noticed on his
body:-

1. Stitched wound 2 cm. long
with one stiph on the base of the neck left
side 0.5 cm. Left to the supra esternal
notch.

2. Multiple abraded contusion in
an area of 5 cm. X 2.5 cm. On the back of
left elbow.

3. Abraded contusion 1.5 cm. X
0.5 cm. on the front of right leg 26 cm.
below right knee.
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. As per opinion given by the
Doctor, the death was caused as a result of
shock and hemorrhage due to injury no. 1,
which was sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death.

12. Prosecution, to prove its case,
examined injured, Ketar as PW-1 and
Prabhudin as PW-2, Dr. S.H.A. Rizvi, the
then Medical Officer, who was posted at
PHC,
Sarojini
Nagar,
who
initially
examined
Ketar
and
Ramdin
on
27.11.1980, as PW-3, Dr. V.P. Singh,
Medical Officer, posted at Civil Hospital,
Lucknow, who conducted postmortem
examination of deceased, Ramdin, as PW4, Mr. Ram Singh, Head Constable, who
was posted as Head Mohrir at Police
Station
Banthara
on
27.11.1980
and
prepared chick report, Exhibit Ka-1, as
PW-5, and Mr. Sukh Dev Pandey, SubInspector, who conducted inquest, as PW-6.
Mr. Biraj Shyam Mishra, the Investigating
Officer who completed investigation, as
PW-7.

13. After the prosecution evidence got
concluded, statements of accused were
recorded under Section 313 CrPC.

14. Since one of the appellants, Ram
Khelawan was absconding, the present
appeal filed by him and Ram Dutt was
disconnected from Criminal Appeal No.685
of 1982 filed by Budhu.

15. This Court has already discussed
the evidence in the judgment and order
dated 06.04.2018 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 685 of 1982 and, therefore, no
useful purpose would be served by
extracting the evidence on hereunder. It
would be suffice to note that the place of
incident, manner in which the incident was
caused, presence of the accused and role
played by them in furtherance of common
intention is fully established by injured
witness and independent witness and the
evidence of two doctors, who initially
conducted the medical examination of the
injured and postmortem examination of the
deceased respectively.

16. The prosecution story gets
corroborated by the medical evidence as
well. There is direct evidence of injured
and eye-witness, who have fully supported
the prosecution case.

17. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi,
learned Amicus, however, has submitted
that
the
judgment
and
order
dated
06.04.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
685 of 1982 preferred by co-accused,
Budhu would not be binding on the present
accused-appellants. This Court should
examine their case irrespective of finding
recorded in the said judgment and order. It
has been further submitted that no motive is
coming forth for committing the offence by
the appellants, Ram Khelawan and Ram
Dutt. As per the prosecution case, it was
Budhu, who was aggrieved by settling of
marriage of Rambeti, his sister-in-law, in
village Kharika and, he came with knife. It
has been further submitted that it does not
appeal to reason that Ram Khelawan would
snatch knife from Budhu and give fatal
blow on deceased, Ramdin and injure
Ketar. It has been further submitted that
accused, Ram Dutt has been assigned role
of catching hold of the deceased and there
is no reason to believe that the accused,
Ram Khelawan, and Ram Dutt would have
common intention of committing murder of
Ramdin. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the accused had come prepared
to commit the offence or there was
premeditation/prior meeting of minds of the
accused for commission of offence. He has
5 All. Ram Khelawan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
47
submitted that it would not be proper to
convict appellant, Ram Dutt with aid of
Section 34 IPC for offence under Section
302 IPC as role assigned to him of catching
hold of the hand of the deceased only
single blow was given on deceased,
Ramdin and that too by appellant, Ram
Khelawan. Except for role of catching hold
of appellant, Ram Dutt, no other role has
been assigned to him. Therefore, it has
been submitted that since there was single
injury which was caused to deceased,
Ramdin by accused Ram Khelawan and
Ramdin died on next day, it is a fit case
where appellant, Ram Khelawan and Ram
Dutt should be convicted under Section 304
IPC and not under Section 302 IPC, even if
the prosecution story is believed.

18. On the other hand, Mr. Umesh
Verma, learned A.G.A., has submitted that
this Court, while analyzing the evidence on
record, has specifically held that the
prosecution case was fully proved by
evidence on record. This Court also held
that all the three accused had common
intention for committing murder and,
therefore, this Court cannot review the
judgment in which specific finding that all
the three accused had common intention for
committing murder has been recorded. This
Court is neither sitting in appeal nor in
review against the judgment and order
dated 06.04.2018
and, therefore, the
findings recorded in judgment and order
dated 06.04.2018 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.685 of 1982 are binding in the
present appeal, and a different view cannot
be taken. Mr. Verma has further submitted
that even otherwise, when the prosecution
has established the role of giving knife
blow by Ram Khelawan and catching hold
by Budhu and Ram Dutt, it cannot be said
that all the three accused did not have
common intention to cause death of
Ramdin. It is submitted that common
intention could develop instantly. Ram
Khelawan assaulted Ketar after snatching
knife from Budhu and when Ramdin tried
to save him, accused Ram Dutt and Budhu
caught hold of Ramdin and accused, Ram
Khelawan gave fatal blow as a result
thereof, he died. It has been further
submitted that the Doctor had opined that
injury no. 1 suffered by deceased, Ramdin
was sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death. It has been further
submitted that there is no ground to
interfere with the conviction and sentence
of the accused-appellants by the trial Court
and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

19. We have considered the
submissions advanced by the learned
amicus
and
learned
Government
Counsel.

20. Section 34 of the IPC creates a
deeming fiction by infusing and importing
a criminal act constituting an offence
committed by one into others. It is for the
prosecution to prove the common intention
to the satisfaction of the Court.

21. This Court in its judgment and
order dated 06.04.2018 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.685 of 1982, after analyzing the
evidence in detail, has held that all the three
accused had common intention to commit
murder of the deceased.

22. The Supreme Court in recent
judgment (2022) 2 SCC 545 (Jasdeep
Singh alias Jassu Vs. State of Punjab) has
held that common intention to commit an
offence is a team effort akin to a game of
football involving several positions manned
by many. It would be apt to extract few
paragraphs
from
the
said
judgment
hereunder:-
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"22. It is a team effort akin to a
game of football involving several positions
manned by many, such as defender, midfielder, striker, and a keeper. A striker may
hit the target, while a keeper may stop an
attack. The consequence of the match,
either a win or a loss, is borne by all the
players, though they may have their distinct
roles. A goal scored or saved may be the
final act, but the result is what matters. As
against the specific individuals who had
impacted more, the result is shared between
the players. The same logic is the
foundation of Section 34 IPC which creates
shared liability on those who shared the
common intention to commit the crime.

23. The intendment of Section 34
IPC is to remove the difficulties in
distinguishing
the
acts
of
individual
members of a party, acting in furtherance
of a common intention. There has to be a
simultaneous conscious mind of the persons
participating in the criminal action of
bringing about a particular result. A
common intention qua its existence is a
question of fact and also requires an act "in
furtherance of the said intention". One
need not search for a concrete evidence, as
it is for the court to come to a conclusion
on a cumulative assessment. It is only a
rule of evidence and thus does not create
any substantive offence.

24. Normally, in an offence
committed physically, the presence of an
accused charged under Section 34 IPC is
required, especially in a case where the act
attributed to the accused is one of
instigation/exhortation. However, there are
exceptions, in particular, when an offence
consists of diverse acts done at different
times and places. Therefore, it has to be
seen on a case-to-case basis.

25.
The
word
"furtherance"
indicates the existence of aid or assistance
in producing an effect in future. Thus, it has
to be construed as an advancement or
promotion.

26. There may be cases where all
acts, in general, would not come under the
purview of Section 34 IPC, but only those
done in furtherance of the common
intention having adequate connectivity.
When we speak of intention it has to be one
of criminality with adequacy of knowledge
of any existing fact necessary for the
proposed offence. Such an intention is
meant to assist, encourage, promote and
facilitate the commission of a crime with
the requisite knowledge as aforesaid.

27. The existence of common
intention is obviously the duty of the
prosecution to prove. However, a court has
to analyse and assess the evidence before
implicating a person under Section 34 IPC.
A mere common intention per se may not
attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in
furtherance. There may also be cases where
a
person
despite
being
an
active
participant in forming a common intention
to commit a crime, may actually withdraw
from it later. Of course, this is also one of
the facts for the consideration of the court.
Further, the fact that all accused charged
with an offence read with Section 34 IPC
are present at the commission of the crime,
without dissuading themselves or others
might well be a relevant circumstance,
provided a prior common intention is duly
proved. Once again, this is an aspect which
is required to be looked into by the court on
the evidence placed before it. It may not be
required on the part of the defence to
specifically raise such a plea in a case
where adequate evidence is available
before the court."

23. The essence of Section 34 IPC is
consensus of minds of the persons
participating in a criminal action to bring
about a particular result. It does not create
5 All. Ram Khelawan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
49
any distinct offence but lays down the
principle of constructive criminal liability.
The facts of this case would disclose that
all the three accused had participated in
commission of the offence inasmuch as two
of them caught hold of the deceased and
one gave fatal blow on neck as a result
thereof deceased, Ramdin died. According
to Doctor, who conducted autopsy on deadbody of the deceased, the injury caused on
neck of Ramdin was sufficient in ordinary
course to cause death. There is no hard and
fast rule that in case of single injury,
provisions of Section 302 IPC would not be
attracted. It would depend upon facts of
each case, nature of injury, part of body
where injury is caused, weapon used in
causing such injury to ascertain intention of
causing death. Therefore, the submission of
learned Amicus that since single injury was
caused on neck of the deceased, the
accused did not have intention to cause
death does not appeal to us.

24. The Supreme Court in (2020) 9
SCC 524 (Stalin Vs. State Represented
by the Inspector of Police) noted down on
this issue, the observations in AIR 1958
SC 465 (Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab)
and held in paragraph 7.2 as under:-

"7.2 From the above stated
decisions, it emerges that there is no hard
and fast rule that in a case of single injury
Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It
depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. The nature of injury, the part
of the body where it is caused, the weapon
used in causing such injury are the
indicators of the fact whether the accused
caused the death of the deceased with an
intention of causing death or not. It cannot
be laid down as a rule of universal
application that whenever the death occurs
on account of a single blow, Section 302
IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be
considered in each case, more particularly,
under
the
circumstances
narrated
hereinabove, the events which precede will
also have a bearing on the issue whether
the act by which the death was caused was
done with an intention of causing death or
knowledge that it is likely to cause death,
but without intention to cause death. It is
the totality of the circumstances which will
decide the nature of offence."

25. Accused, Ram Khelawan had
given knife blow on neck of the deceased
which resulted into death of deceased on
next day. Considering the opinion of the
Doctor, weapon used in committing offence
and body part where knife blow was given,
this Court is of the view that the accused
had intention to cause death while the
deceased was caught hold by two other coaccused. In view thereof, this Court does
not find any ground to take a different view
than the view which has been taken in
Criminal Appeal No.685 of 1982. In the
result, this appeal also fails and is hereby
dismissed. However, considering the fact
that the incident took place in the year
1980. The appellants are in their advance
age and, therefore, the State Government
should consider their case for remission
expeditiously, taking into consideration
their advance age and their conduct in jail
etc. in accordance with law.

26. We appreciate valuable assistance
rendered by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi,
learned Amicus and Mr. Umesh Verma,
learned A.G.A. during the course of hearing
of this appeal.

27. We fix Rs.11,000/- to be paid to
learned Amicus as fee, for assisting the
Court.
----------
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)05ILR A50
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 1996

Kali Prasad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri V.S. Kushwaha, Sri Dhirendra Kumar,
Sri Mohd. Kalim, Sri Ulajhan Singh Bind,
Ms. Mary Punch (Sheeba Jose)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302-challenge
to -conviction-modification of sentencemurder-altercation between two truck
drivers over on a trivial issue-the accused
and
the
deceased
were
strangersstatements of eye-witnesses PW-2 and
PW-3 are consistent-both were entangled
in the fight while being in their respective
trucks, the appellant gave a blow of knife
to the deceased-appellant had committed
the offence without any pre-meditation in
a sudden fight in the state of anger-oral
altercation took an ugly turn-death caused
due to head injury by the butt of the knife
on account of which the deceased went
into coma and died-the act of the
appellant was clearly with the intent to
cause bodily injury which could result in
the death-Thus, the appellant is not guilty
of murder u/s 302 of the Code but the
offence would fall under Section 304 Part
I of the IPC.(Para 1 to 38)

B. While answering the question of
modification of sentence, the principle of
exclusion could be applied. If the accused
commits an act while exceeding the right
of private defence by which the death is
caused
either
with
the
intention
of
causing death or with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as was likely to
cause death then he would be guilty under
Part I of Section 304. On the other hand if
before the application of the Exceptions of
Section 300 it is found that he was guilty
of murder within the meaning of clause
"fourthly", then no question of such
intention arises and only the knowledge is
to be fastened on him that he did indulge
in an act with the knowledge that it was
likely to cause death but without any
intention to cause it or without any
intention to cause such bodily injuries as
was likely to cause death. There does not
seem to be any escape from the position,
therefore, that the appellant could be
convicted only under Part II of Section
304 and not Part I.(Para 24)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. Tr. P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi Vs
Sanjeev Nanda(2012) AIR SC 3104
2. Rampal Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC
289

3. Vineet Kumar Chauhan Vs St. of U.P. (2007)
14 SCC 660

4. St. of A. P. Vs S Rayavarapu Punnayya &
anr.(1976) 4 SCC 382

5. Virsa Singh Vs St. of Punj.(1958) AIR SC 465

6. Rajwant Singh Vs St. of Ker.(1966) AIR SC
1874

7. Aradadi Ramudu @ Aggiramudu Vs St. thru
Inspr. of Police, Yanam(2012) 5 SCC 249

8. St. of U.P. Vs Indrajeet (2000) 7 SCC 249

9. Statish Narayan Sawant Vs St. of Goa (2009)
17 SCC 724