TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

THIRUCHIRAPALLI
I Year I Semester B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) Degree Course

PAPER -

LEGAL METHODS

CODE HAA

Name of the Supervisor: Mr. Anshuman Singh

Submitted by
PRAKHAR BHATT
Roll no.: BA0150030
Tamil Nadu National Law School
E-mail: prakharbhatt090@gmail.com
B.A LLB First Year
Trichy, India
MARKS AWARDED

CASE ANALYSIS OF
RAMPAL SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
FACTS
1 - jograj and chattar singh was uterine brothers, jograj has three sons anurag, rajesh and amar
singh. Ram kr. Singh(deceased) was the son of rajesh singh.
2 - Rampal singh and ramsaran singh were grandsons of chattar singh.
3 - Both deceased and appellant were serving in army as Lans Naik.
4 - Two months before the incident deceased came home on leave. He erected a ladauri on his
vacant land and went back.
5 - rampal singh also came on leave, he broke the ladauri and started throwing garbage on the
vacant land.
6 five days before the occurrence between the leave his uncle and one villager came to
deceased home. Rampal also come there with his brother ramsaran singh. Deceased enquired
from rampal for demolishing the ladauri and throwing garbage on his vacant land.
7 some altercation took place, they even grappled with each other.
8 deceased throwed appellant on the ground.
9 ramsaran and amar singh seperated them.
10 appellant went home, climbed on the roof with his rifle and asked his brother ram saran to
keep away as he wanted to shoot the deceased.
11 consequently deceased said as to whether the appellant had the courage to shoot him. On
hearing this appellant shot at the deceased with his rifle and ran away.
12 ramsaran and others called village compunder who filled injury with dough(aata).
13 deceased was carried to hospital and got admitted on the same day.

14 doctor examined him, she found the bullet wound in the right side abdomen.
15 S.I. of the kotwali fatehgarh came and made inquiry from the deceased who told him that
the appellant had fired at him with the intention to kill him.
16 he made a report to the station officer and asked him a case under section 307(attempt to
murder) of IPC to be registered.
17 on 13 feb. deceased made a dying declaration wherein he stated that he had been shot at by
the appellant with rifle at about 2.00 p.m. on 13th February 1978, when he was coming out of his
house. Subsequently, on account of the said injury, the deceased developed infection and died on
17th February, 1978 at 7.00 a.m.
18 an information was sent to the kotwali to conduct for post mortem examination.
19 - He had found the gun shot wound and was of the opinion that the deceased died
due to shock and toxemia as a result of ante-mortem injuries .
20 - Thereafter, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Shri Vedi Singh, Sub-Inspector
Police Station Bewar.
21 he recorded the statement of various witnesses, inspected the site with the help
of other persons and prepared a site plan .
22 - the Investigating Officer made a request to the Military Unit at Delhi to hand over
custody of the appellant, who had surrendered .
23 - The appellant was handed over to the Investigating Officer, who then produced him before
the Magistrate and submitted the charge sheet .
24 -Upon committal, charge under Section 302 of the Code was framed against the
appellant for which he was tried and finally convicted, as aforenoticed, to suffer imprisonment
for life.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The first trial of this case was held in VIII Additional Session Court, further the Divisioon
Branch of Allahbad High Court affrimed the decision of the session court of conviction and life
imprisonment of Rampal Singh for an offence commited under section 302 of the IPC. The
judgement of the high court was dated 15th May,2007.
The appleant issued an appeal against the judgemnt in the Supreme court of India
on 2009, under the criminal appeal number 2114.

LEGAL ISSUE does rampal singh should be punished for murder sec.302 or culpable
homicide not amounting to murder sec. 304.
JUDGEMENT The supreme court partially accept this appeal and alter the offence that the
appellant has been held guilty of, from that under Section 302 of the Code to the one under
Section 304 Part I of the Code. Having held that the accused is guilty of the offence under
Section 304 Part I, we award a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
SECTIONS USED FROM INDIAN PENAL CODE
299 CULPABLE HOMICIDE Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of
causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.
300 MURDER except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicideis murder, if the
act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, orSecondly if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, orThirdly if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, orFourthly if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must,
in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
302 PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER Whoever commits murder shall be punished with
death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

304 PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER

whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or oto cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Para 1 : Punishment imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine
cogniziable non bailable triable by court of session non compundable.
Para 2 : Punishment imprisonment for 10 years, or fine, or both cogniziable non bailable
triable by court of session non compundable.
OPINION Going through the case, the court has changed the charges from section 302 to 304
part I and allowed a rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Reviewing the ratio behind the high court changing the charges, it was stated that the cases
where culpable homicide cannot amount to murder would come under section 304 part I .
According to my viewpoint, the situation here putsthe shooting of the deceased as murder. It is a
culpable homicide amounting to murder. Clearly based on facts, the appelant could not have shot
at the deceased based on the provocation because there was a considerable time and he had his
mental state stable when he asked his brother to move away. This proves that his mental state
was stable and he had full knowledge as to what results would be of shooting. Other than this the
appellant was an army man and he knew how to deal with guns and the injury to the stomach
clearly portrays that he knew which part of the body could result in a bodily injury leading to the
death of a person. Therefore, the judgement of the high court should be upheld according to my
opinion.