Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 742 (RAJ)

DUNGA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

1996-07-18

A.K.SINGH, G.L.GUPTA

body1996
Judgment A. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. ( 2 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (camp at Didwana), on 11th Dec. 1981 in Sessions Case No. 47/81, State v. Dunga Ram, whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under-go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be summarised as below :-ON 21st June, 1981 Krishna Ram Meghwal submitted the First Information Report Ex. P-3 before the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Jaswantgarh and stated therein that on 20th June, 1981 at about 9. 00 p. m. Dunga Ram Ganpat Ram, Uda Ram, Gopi Ram and Gulab Ram went to the house of Pusa Ram with lathis and axes in their hands and at the house of Pusa Ram the accused abused Pusa Ram and the first informant and inflicted injuries on them. On hearing the hue and cry Aasum Ram, Gordhan Ram and others came to the spot and intervened. At that time the assailants threatened the first informant that they would kill him. After the above incident the first informant went to Didwada with a view to lodge the First Information Report at the Police Station. In his absence his uncle, Pusa Ram went out of his house at about 6. 00 a. m. to reply the call of nature. When he passed in front of the house of the accused, the accused who were armed with lathis and axes and were waiting for him ran after Pusa Ram with a view to kill him and at that time Dunga Ram who was armed with lathi inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Pusa Ram. The blow landed on the left side of his head. On hearing the alarm raised by Pusa Ram, Jaggu Ram Meghwal and Sawai Ram Jat rushed to the spot and reminded the accused that Pusa Ram might die. Meanwhile Pusa Ram fell on the ground and then the accused said "". Pusa Ram in an injured condition was taken to Didwana Hospital by Mangi Lal and Jaggu Ram. His condition was serious and he was unconscious. First Information Report Ex. Meanwhile Pusa Ram fell on the ground and then the accused said "". Pusa Ram in an injured condition was taken to Didwana Hospital by Mangi Lal and Jaggu Ram. His condition was serious and he was unconscious. First Information Report Ex. P-3 shows that medical examination of the injuries of Pusa Ram was conducted before lodging the First Information Report and the medical examination report was submitted with the First Information Report. On the basis of the report submitted by Krishna Ram Meghwal the Police registered the case under Sections 341, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Pusa Ram was admitted as an indoor patient in Government hospital, Didwana and when he was undergoing treatment, he died on 24th June, 1981 on account of the injury received by him. The Police therefore, investigated the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation the challan was submitted in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, alleging the commission of offence punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the appellant. After taking cognizance the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur. The charge under Section 302 was framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to support the prosecution case, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In his statement the appellant expressed ignorance about the alleged occurrence and denied all the circumstances appearing against him. Ganpat DW-l, Nanu Ram DW-2 and Karna Ram DW-3 were examined in defence. After hearing both the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to under-go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code because, even if the prosecution story is totally believed, the act of the accused does not amount to culpable homicide amounting to murder and the appellant can be held guilty only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. To support the above contention the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that accordingly to prosecution story only one blow was inflicted on the head of Pusa Ram by the appellant with a lathi and when Pusa Ram was medically examined by the Medical Jurist only one simple injury caused by blunt weapon was found on his head as evidenced by Medico Legal Report Ex. P-10. The injury has been described in Ex. P10 :-lacerated wound left side of parietal region with swelling extending upto eye lid (left) 31/2" x 1/2"skin deep simple blunt in column No. 7 of Ex. P-10 the Medical Jurist advised examination of the injury. Shri Om Prakash PW-10 is the Medical Jurist in his statement he has deposed that on X-Ray examination the injury found on the head of Pusa Ram was not found to be grevious. Relying upon the above circumstance the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the injury inflicted by the appellant on the head of deceased Pusa Ram was a simple injury caused with a blunt weapon viz. a lathi and the liability of the appellant for this injury is confined to Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and does not go beyond that Section. Regarding the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case there is nothing to prove that the appellant intended to cause death or intended to cause an injury which he knew was likely to cause death, or he intended to cause an injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death or the appellant committed an act which was so dangerous to human life that in all probability it must have caused death and therefore, the act of the appellant does not fall Within the definition of culpable homicide amounting to murder as given in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out because the simple injury, which the appellant had inflicted on the head of the deceased, was not likely to cause death and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot be said to have any knowledge that by his act of inflicting injury on the head of the deceased, he might cause his death. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that assuming the prosecution story to be totally reliable the offence under Sections 302 or 304 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and, therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported judgment delivered by the learned Additional Session Judge and submitted that since the act of inflicting injury on the head of the deceased was an intentional act, therefore, the appellant must be held responsible for the death which occurred on account of the internal injury sustained by the deceased. Relying upon the statement of Shri Om Prakash PW 10 the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the injury which was found inside the skull of the deceased by the Medical Jurist Om Prakash PW 10, who conducted the post mortem examination, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death and, therefore, the act of the accused squarely falls within Clause 3 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the contention that no offence under Sections 302 or 304 or 325 of the Indian Penal Code is proved is not correct because the injury, found by Shri Om Prakash PW 10 while conducting the post-mortem examination was dangerous to life as it was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 5 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the both the parties. In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant intended to cause the death of Pusa Ram when he inflicted a single lathi blow on the head of the deceased. Previous incident which according to the First Information Report occurred on 20th June, 1981 at 9. In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant intended to cause the death of Pusa Ram when he inflicted a single lathi blow on the head of the deceased. Previous incident which according to the First Information Report occurred on 20th June, 1981 at 9. 00 p. m. cannot be said to be so serious so as to lead to the inference that the appellant intended to cause the death of Pusa Ram. In the absence of any evidence of intention to cause the death, Section 300 firstly of the Indian Penal Code does not apply. Section 300 "secondly and thirdly require the intention to cause the bodily injury which is responsible for the death of any person. Unless such intention is proved Section 300 secondly and thirdly of the Indian Penal Code cannot be applied. In the instant case, according to prosecution version, one single blow with the lathi was given on the left side of the head of Pusa Ram and this blow resulted in a simple injury, which was in the nature of lacerated wound on the left side of the parietal region with swelling extending upto eye lid (left) there was no fracture beneath this wound and by itself a lacerated wound on the head cannot be said to be dangerous for life or of serious nature and Shri Om Prakash PW 10, who prepared the medico legal report Ex. P10 has rightly described this injury as simple and caused by blunt weapon. Assuming the prosecution version to be true the appellant can be held responsible for this simple injury but then this simple injury is not the cause of death of Pusa Ram. The cause of death of the Pusa Ram is an internal injury found by Shri Om Prakash PW 10 when he conducted the post mortem examination. This internal injury was in the nature of intra cranial haemorrhage and it was caused by the single lathi blow inflicted by the appellant. The crucial question is whether the appellant can be held responsible on account of a single lathi blow given by him to the deceased Pusa Ram. This internal injury was in the nature of intra cranial haemorrhage and it was caused by the single lathi blow inflicted by the appellant. The crucial question is whether the appellant can be held responsible on account of a single lathi blow given by him to the deceased Pusa Ram. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 300 secondly and thirdly of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the opinion that in a case of this kind it is not sufficient for the prosecution to show that the accused intentionally inflicted a blow and caused a simple injury on the head of the deceased, it is further necessary for the prosecution to show that the accused had the intention to cause the internal injury which was, in fact, responsible for causing the death of the deceased because the intention required by Section 300 secondly and thirdly of the Indian Penal Code is in respect of the injury or injuries which resulted in death of the deceased. In the instant case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to cause the intra cranial haemorrhage which was found by the Medical Jurist on opening the skull, because the appellant gave only one blow and the blow was not by such force as was necessary to cause the fracture of the skull. Ordinarily intra cranial haemorrhage, which was the cause of the death and in view of the provisions of Section 300 secondly and thirdly the act of the appellant does not fall within the definition of culpable homicide amounting to murder. So far as Section 300 Clause 4 is concerned there is nothing to show that the act of appellant was so imminently dangerous that in all probability it was bound to cause the death. " So far as the liability under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned since the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant intended to cause intra cranial hemorrhage which resulted in death, Section 304 Part One of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the appellant had the knowledge that a single blow with a lathi was likely to cause intra cranial haemorrhage or any such internal injury was likely to cause death. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the appellant had the knowledge that a single blow with a lathi was likely to cause intra cranial haemorrhage or any such internal injury was likely to cause death. Therefore, Section 304 Part Two of the Indian Penal Code is also not attracted. We, therefore find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In our view the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. At best the appellant is liable to conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) FOR reasons stated above the appeal is partly allowed the conviction and sentence, passed by the Additional Session Judge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code deserve to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The appellant is however convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the lower Court on 11th Dec. 1981 and he was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 22nd April, 1982 he was actually released from jail on 30th April, 1982. This shows that the appellant has remanded in judicial custody for sometime during investigation and trial and for about 4 1/2 months he remained in jail of his conviction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the appellant Dunga Ram is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the period of for which he was remained in jail is liable to be adjusted towards his sentence awarded to him. Since the appellant has undergone the sentence awarded to him, therefore, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal partly allowed.