Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 828 (RAJ)

Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan

1993-12-16

N.L.TIBREWAL

body1993
JUDGMENT 1. In this revision petition, the order dated June 29,'93 of Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg in Sessions Case No. 43/93 is being challenged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order has framed charges against the petitioners. 2. The sole controversy raised in this revision is that, there was no material on the record for presuming that the accused petitioners have committed an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code so as to frame a charge for the said offence. In order to appreciate the contention, the necessary facts of the case may be given, Crime No. 128/88 was registered at police station Kama, on the report of one Ganga Ram. The prosecution case, as per the report, is that on August 13, 1988, his wife Smt. Khelia was assaulted by the accused petitioners after taking her to their house. The informant was also given beating when he tried to save her. The case was registered under Sections 307, 452, 323, 324, 341, 147, 148 & 149, IPC. The injuries of Smt. Khelia were examined by the Doctor on 13.8.1988. As per the injury report, she had sustained 6 injuries. All the injuries were simple, except one compound fracture on the left leg. 3. The informant-Gangaram had also sustained two superficial injuries, as per his injury report. On X-ray examination also no bone injury was found on the skull of Smt. Khelia. However, fracture of left leg Tibia and Fibula were noticed. 4. The injured Smt. Khelia had died on 13.10.1988 and, admittedly, no post-mortem of her dead-body was conducted. After her death, the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code was added and a charge-sheet was filed under sections 147,148,149,323,324,341, 452 and 302, IPC. The case was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg and the learned Judge, vide his impugned order has framed charges for the offence under sections 147,148,323, 326, 324, 302, 342 and 452, IPC. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel, as stated earlier, was that the charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, could not be framed against the petitioners as the ingredients of Sections 299 and 300, Indian Penal Code, are missing. Learned counsel contended that there is no material on the record to show that the act done by the petitioners or any one of them had caused the death of Smt. Khelia. Learned counsel contended that there is no material on the record to show that the act done by the petitioners or any one of them had caused the death of Smt. Khelia. It was contended that there was no postmortem to show that the death had taken place on account of the injuries sustained by her. There is no evidence that the injuries sustained by her were likely to cause her death. My attention was also drawn to the statement of Dr. K. C. Sharma recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. The doctor has stated that he treated Smt. Khelia and she was discharged from the Hospital on 12.10.1988 and she was alive. It may be stated that the doctor did not say a single word that the injuries sustained by Smt. Khelia were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death or likely to cause death or that death was caused due to the injuries. Illustration(a) of Section 211 Cr. P. C. provides as under for the contents of a charge under section 302 Indian Penal Code : "(a) A is charged with the murder of B. This is equivalent to a statement that A's act fall within the definition of murder given in Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), that it did not fall within any of the general exceptions of the said Code, and that it did not fall within any of the five exceptions to Section 300, or that, if it did fall within Exception 1, one or other of the three proviso to that exception applied to it." Section 299 Indian Penal Code defines culpable homicide, which reads as under:- "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." 6. Section 300 provides when culpable homicide is murder. 7. A bare reading of Section 299 Indian Penal Code makes it clear that for an act to be culpable homicide, it was necessary that the act done by the accused should be responsible for causing death. In other words, the act done by the accused, should have caused death. Section 300 provides when culpable homicide is murder. 7. A bare reading of Section 299 Indian Penal Code makes it clear that for an act to be culpable homicide, it was necessary that the act done by the accused should be responsible for causing death. In other words, the act done by the accused, should have caused death. Therefore, to frame a charge under section 302 Indian Penal Code, there should be material on the record that the injuries sustained by Smt. Khelia had cause her death. As already stated, the incident had taken place on.13.8.1988, while the death of Smt. Khelia took place after two months on 13.10.88. There is no medical evidence that her death was to the injuries sustained by her. Dr. K. C. Sharma has not stated even that the injuries sustained by Smt. Khelia were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or likely to cause death. A look at the injuries also does not show that any of the injuries was of such a nature, whereby the Court could draw inference that it resulted in her death. A charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code could be framed only if the act fell within the definition of murder, given under Sections 299 and 300 IPC. It is true that some of the witnesses have stated that Smt. Khelia died due to the injuries, but their statements about the opinion is not,relevant, as they are not expert witnesses. This material aspect has been. ignored by the learned Trial Judge, while framing the charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 8. Consequently, I allow this revision in part. The impugned order so far it relates to framing charge under Section 149 Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injury on the leg of Smt. Khelia. The rest of the order is maintained. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed further in accordance with law.Revision partly allowed. *******