Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 376 (MP)

Relsingh v. State of M. P.

2000-04-07

R.D.VYAS, SHAMBHOO SINGH

body2000
This appeal is directed by the accused. against Sessions Judge, Kannod in S.T. No. 40/97 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence u/s 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 11.11.1996 at about 4 p.m., when deceased Mangilal was going to jungle, the appellant stopped him and started giving him lathi blows. Raytibai (PW 1) and Jhaklibai (PW 2) came, hearing alarm made by the Mangilal. They intervened. The deceased lodged report on 12.11.1996 at outpost Harangaon, crime No. 172/96 for offence u/Ss. 341, 504 and 323. IPC was registered at P.S. Khategaon. He was examined by Dr. Sureshchand Suryavanshi (PW 5) who found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound on the mid line on forehead 1-1/4" x 1/4". 2. Contusion on left side of face in middle 1/2" x 1/2". 3. Abrasion on left side of neck 1/4" x 1/4". 4. Abrasion on the right side of neck 1" long. 5. Abrasion on the right side of neck 1/4" x 1/4". 6. Contusion on the back of neck 2" x 1/2". After treatment, the deceased went away to his house where after 12 days, on 23.11.1996, he became serious and died. Offence under Section 302, IPC was added. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The learned A.S.J. convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence, this appeal. Shri Amarsingh, LC for the appellant, submits that he does not challenge the fact that the appellant caused lathi blows to the deceased, as a result of which he died. He contends that the appellant could be convicted for offence u/s 304 II, IPC and not u/s 302, IPC as he had no intention to kill the deceased. The injury caused by the appellant was not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. He further submits that the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than two years and, therefore, he should be sentenced to the period already undergone. Shri Desai, learned Dy. A.G. in view of the evidence on record agrees that the appellant could be convicted for offence u/s 304 II. IPC but he contended that the sentence of two years is not adequate and, therefore. the appellant should not be sentenced to the period already undergone. We considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and persued the record. A.G. in view of the evidence on record agrees that the appellant could be convicted for offence u/s 304 II. IPC but he contended that the sentence of two years is not adequate and, therefore. the appellant should not be sentenced to the period already undergone. We considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and persued the record. From the evidence of Raytibai (PW 1), Jhaklibai (PW 2), Lalsingh (PW 4) and medical evidence, it is not proved that the appellant caused injuries to the deceased with intention to cause his death. He did not intend to cause the head injury. Dr. R.K. Gupta (PW 6) in post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased found one fresh healed wound about 2" in length in the mid-parietal area of the head. He found fracture in mid-parietal area which injured brain. Dr. Gupta did not opine that the head injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, hence, offence u/s 302 IPC is not made out. However, the appellant knew that it was likely that the head injury would cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the offence u/s 304 II, IPC was made out against the appellant. The prayer of the learned defence counsel that the appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone, is not acceptable. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant u/s 302, IPC are set-aside and instead he is convicted for offence u/s 304 II. IPC and sentenced to six years R.I. The period of incarceration shall be given set of u/s 428 of the CrPC.