SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

PROJECT ON

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF GAJENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN

LAW OF CRIMES 2, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1

Submitted by
Rithik Anand Kamath

Division: C, PRN: 17010324045

Batch 2017-22

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED) UNIVERSITY
IN
MARCH, 2020

Under guidance of
Prof. Hifajatali Sayed
Assistant Professor
ISSUE

1. Whether Gajender Singh is accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code?
2. Whether the injury caused to the deceased by Gajender Singh led to his death?
3. Whether the offence also falls under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code?
4. whether in these circumstances the accused appellant can be held guilty under Section
304, Part-II IPC, or any other offences.

RULE

1. Section 304, Part- 2 IPC,

“Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable

homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[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 of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done
with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death”.

2. Section 255, IPC,

“Counterfeiting Government stamp.—Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of

the process of counterfeiting, any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall
be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—A person commits
this offence who counterfeits by causing a genuine stamp of one denomination to appear like a
genuine stamp of a different denomination”

3. Section 46 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

Arrest how made.

(1)  In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch
or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by
word or action.
(2)  If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest,
such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.
(3)  Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an
offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.

4. Section 307, IPC,

Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be
liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.—2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of
1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] 

5. Section 302, IPC, Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished
with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
ANALYSIS

In this case, Gajender kumar was the head constable and was sent to arrest Kanji. Upon his
arrival at the venue of arrest, Kanji’s father Badariya and the head constable Gajender kumar get
into fight during which both the parties suffer injuries but Badariya died of his injuries in the
hospital. The Analysis is as follow:

1. Gajender Singh cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC for murder as the accused
has no intention or motive to kill Badariya.
2. Gajender Singh must be convicted under section 304 of IPC for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder
3. Gajender should be relieved of the charges under Section 307 of IPC and Section 302 of
IPC.
4. Kanji and Badariya must be prosecuted for attacking an on duty police officer.

CONCLUSION

In the following case, the court has convicted Appellant Gajender Singh under Section 304, Part-
II, IPC and sentenced to 2-1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge,
Banswara, by his judgment dated 8-2-1979. Here Gajender Singh was at fault as he attacked and
injured an elderly man on duty as a police officer. The man died in the hospital due to his
injuries. Here the court looked at the case in different perspectives. They have analyzed the case
and ruled out the possibility of murder and attempt to murder. Moreover section 304 which talks
about culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a correct charge to have convicted
Gajender Singh with. He has no intention or motive of killing Badariya and it was all due to the
circumstances and only Section 304 applies in such cases.
The bench and the judgment given suffices with the facts and the issue of the case and the rule
followed is in accordance with the procedure of law and Gajender kumar is a convict in this case
under section 304 Part 2 of Indian Penal Code.