The law provides punishment for those acts too, which does not have an element of “intention” but the awareness of the consequences of the act: Allahabad High Court
“Intention” the mens rea of the crime: Intention is defined as the deliberate objective that leads a person to commit a crime, forbidden by the law, or that may result in an unlawful outcome. The criminal law directs that before an accused can be convicted of a criminal offense the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actus reus (guilty act) coincided in law time with mens rea (guilty mind).
The law provides punishment for those acts too which does not have an element of “intention” but the knowledge and awareness of consequences of the act done was opined by the High Court of Allahabad learned bench led by HONOURABLE JUSTICE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN in the case Subhash vs the State of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 2434 of 2009).
Accused-appellant Subhash has filed this criminal appeal against the judgment and order in which he was convicted under sections 323/34 and 304 (II) of the IPC and sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 for an offense u/s 323/34 of the IPC, and to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 and two months further imprisonment, if the fine is not paid for an offense under section 304(II) of All of the sentences are set to run at the same time.
FACTS OF THE CASE: According to the prosecution defendants Subhash, Gulab, and Dayanand arrived at his house and began abusing him and assaulting him with a lathi and a danda. The locals gathered and rescued him. After that, P.W.1 Smt. Dhanmati drove her husband (Ram) to the Community Health Centre where his injuries were examined and he was referred to the District Hospital where he was treated, and after being released from the hospital, Smt. Dhanmati and Ram Lakhan returned to their village home and stayed there.
On the fourth day after the incident, deceased Ram went to the police station, and one Non-Cognizable Report was filed in Police Station on the oral dictation of first informant Ram for offenses under sections 323/504,506 IPC against accused Subhash, Gulab, and Dayanand. After eighteen days, Ram died as a result of his injuries, and P.W.1 Smt. Dhanmati reported her husband’s death to the police station, where section 304 IPC was added, and the case was transformed to case crime U/s 304 IPC as a cognizable offense.
COURT’S OBSERVATION: The Hon’ble Court has evaluated the argument in light of the evidence, facts, and circumstances of the case, hence concluding that the deceased was assaulted without provocation. Repeated lathi blows thrashed him mercilessly. Subhash, the accused-appellant, is a healthy 40-year-old man. To inflict harm, the accused picked important regions of the body. In these circumstances, a sentence of seven years of hard labor looks suitable and does not require any intervention.
JUDGEMENT: The appeal is dismissed as a result of its failure.
Because the appellant is already out on bail, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to take the appellant into custody and send him to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence imposed by the trial court. The appellant’s bail bond is canceled, and his sureties are likewise released.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY RIYA DWIVEDI