This criminal appeal challenged the judgment and order dated November 25, 1989, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1984. The trial court had convicted appellant No. 2, Kanauji Lal, along with co-accused Jai Narain, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The Allahabad High Court partly allowed the appeal by altering Kanauji Lal’s conviction from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, taking into account the lack of premeditation, the sudden nature of the quarrel, the appellant’s advanced age of roughly 90 years, and the extraordinary lapse of over four decades since the incident.
- Factual Background:
- The deceased, Gaindan Lal, and appellant Kanauji Lal were close friends who had previously purchased a tractor jointly by raising a loan.
- On the morning of May 15, 1984, a dispute arose when the deceased demanded that co-accused Jai Narain return or account for four sacks of wheat, which Jai Narain refused to do until joint tractor accounts were settled. Kanauji Lal supported Jai Narain, leading to a heated verbal altercation that was initially pacified by villagers.
- Later around 8:00 AM, while going to his field, the deceased was called near a flour mill under the pretext of an amicable settlement.
- Kanauji Lal arrived carrying a licensed SBBL gun, and upon a renewed argument and an exhortation by Jai Narain, Kanauji Lal fired a single shot to the deceased’s chest, resulting in instantaneous death.
- Appellants’ Submissions:
- The defense argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted entirely, the facts do not constitute murder under Section 302 IPC because the incident was the outcome of a sudden quarrel.
- It was contended that the appellant possessed only the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, but lacked the specific murderous intention required under Section 300 IPC, making Section 304 Part II IPC the appropriate section.
- State’s Submissions:
- The Additional Government Advocate supported the trial court ruling, arguing that arriving with a firearm and deliberately shooting at the chest—a vital body part—demonstrated a clear intention to cause death or an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
- Legal Analysis & Findings:
- Evaluation of Mens Rea: Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Anbazhagan v. State and Jawahar Lal v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that intention is a question of fact to be inferred from the cumulative circumstances rather than isolated facts like the use of a deadly weapon or a single injury.
- Absence of Premeditation: The Court observed that the parties had a long-standing cordial relationship with no prior enmity or deep-seated hostility regarding the tractor transaction. The confrontation erupted suddenly over a minor wheat transaction, and the shooting occurred during the heat of a sudden verbal duel.
- Alteration of Offence: While the appellant must be attributed with the knowledge that discharging a firearm during a quarrel is likely to cause death (satisfying Section 299 / Section 304 Part II IPC), the higher degree of mens rea for murder under Section 300 Clause Thirdly was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- Final Order:
- The appeal was partly allowed.
- The conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside.
- The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC.
- Considering his advanced age (about 90 years) and the four-decade delay, the Court sentenced him to the period already undergone along with a fine of 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) to be deposited within three months, failing which he would undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment.
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 118
Jai Narain v. State of U.P. (Surviving Appellant: Kanauji Lal) (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 118 click here to view full text of judgment
