Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 449 (GAU)

Ramesh Khandelwal v. State of Assam

2002-11-06

N.SURJAMANI SINGH, P.G.AGARWAL

body2002
N.S. SINGH, J- Heard Mr S.K. Muktar learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Rajkhowa learned P.P. for the State. 2. The appellant namely Ramesh Khandelwal has been convicted with imprisonment for life coupled with fine of Rs. 2,000/- only, and in default of payment thereof another six months R.I. under Section 302 IPC in terms of the judgment dated 19.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 95(S)/1997 U/S 302 IPC reference to GR Case No. 277 97 which is the subject matter under challenge in this appeal. 3. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows: One Bhuda Tanti the adopted son of the informant was stabbed with a knife on his chest by the accused Ramesh Khandelwal at Bhimajuli Forest and as a reason of which the deceased succumbed to injury. The case of the prosecution is that after committing the crime the accused run away but, he was caught by the police party and accordingly, a case was registered being case No. 14/97 U/S 302 IPC at Biswanath Chariali Police Station. The accused was tried. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted with imprisonment for life coupled with a fine as mentioned above. 4. Mr S.K. Muktar, the learned Amicus Curiae at a very outset contended that there was no intention on the part of the accused appellant to kill the victim. Supporting his submission the learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our attention to the evidence of the prosecution witness/particularly PW No. 3 and submitted that the accused was called 'thief by the victim and that being the position, the accused took out a knife and hit Bhuda and it was on the spur of the moment and there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased Bhuda. The learned counsel also argued that there was one blow on the body of the victim and therefore, the offence so far committed by the accused could come within the purview of Section 302 of the IPC. In this regard the learned Amicus Curiae also drawn our attention to the evidence adduced by the Doctor and also the Medical Report. The learned counsel also argued that there was one blow on the body of the victim and therefore, the offence so far committed by the accused could come within the purview of Section 302 of the IPC. In this regard the learned Amicus Curiae also drawn our attention to the evidence adduced by the Doctor and also the Medical Report. According to learned Amicus Curiae, there was only one incised wound at right side on chest near sternum obliquently placed at nipple line about 1'' x W x chest cavity. At this stage, supporting the case of the appellant, the learned Amicus Curiae has cited the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Jagtar Singh appellant-Vs-State of Punjab, respondent reported in AIR 1983 SC 463 and contended that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death or causing particular injury could not be imputed to him, and single blow by knife on chest of victim causing his death would not amount to murder. It is also argued that, in that case Jagtar Singh-Vs-State of Punjab (supra) the accused appellant who made single blow by knife on the chest of the victim was not intentional and his conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC and, his sentence to imprisonment for life was set aside by the Apex Court though the High Court affirmed the conviction made by the trial Court. Now, we are to see and examine as to whether the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the accused person or not under the related judgment. 5. There are two eyewitnesses that is the P.W.3 & 4. We have perused the evidence on record as well as the judgment passed by the trial Court. According to us, the evidence of those two eyewitnesses are corroborated by each other on the material and factual facts inasmuch as it was the present accused appellant Ramesh Khandelwal who stabbed with the knife on the chest of the deceased who died instantaneously on the spot. It is true that there was one blow and one incased wound on the right side of the chest but, the gravity of the blow so made by the accused with knife on the chest of the victim is very high. 6. It is true that there was one blow and one incased wound on the right side of the chest but, the gravity of the blow so made by the accused with knife on the chest of the victim is very high. 6. Lacerated fracture on the 5th rib of the right side at-Sternal and at cartilage, ploura which has been lacerated and the cavity of it was full of blood which caused the death of the victim instantaneously. In this regard we hereby recall the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Dhupa Chamar and others- Vs-State of Bihar reported in 2002 AIR SCW 3217 and in that case, the Apex Court had dealt with the related provisions of law and the related issue of 'one blow' and, also earlier related decisions of law in the matter including Jagtar Singh- Vs-State of Punjab (supra) as cited by the learned Amicus Curiae on the related issue and, exhaustively dealt with the nature of weapon like knife etc. The relevant observation of the Apex Court on the issue in question finds its place at paragraph 13 of the judgment in Dhupa Chamar and Ors- Vs-State of Bihar (supra) which is relevant in the present case and accordingly, it is quoted below: "13. In the case of Mahesh Balmiki alias Munna-Vs-State of M.P. 2000( 1) SCC 319, accused gave a single fatal blow with knife on the chest on the left side of the sternum between the costal joint of the 6th and 7th ribs, fracturing both the ribs and track of the wound going through the- sternum, pericardium, anterior and posterior after passing the ribs and thereafter entering the liver and perforating a portion of stomach. There, conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code was upheld by the High Court and when appeal was brought to this Court by Special Leave, while confirming the conviction under Section 302, this Court observed thus at page 322-323. Adverting to the contention of a single blow, it may be pointed out that there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow in some cases entail conviction under Section 302 IPC in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC. Adverting to the contention of a single blow, it may be pointed out that there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow in some cases entail conviction under Section 302 IPC in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention of knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him." Keeping in view of the above provisions and principles of law, we are of the view that we have to see and examine the evidence on record pertaining to the existence of the nature of the single blow which may attract the provisions of Section 302 IPC or not. It may also be noted that in all such cases, the Court is to examine as to whether such single blow attracts Section 302 of the IPC or not? In the instant case, as discussed above, there was single blow and as such blow has its gravity to the highest degree which caused the facture on 5th rib of the right side at sternal and at curtilage and apart from that, ploura was lacerated and cavity was full of blood thus causing the death of the victim instantaneously because of the existence of the fractures. It also may be noted that carrying the knife arid hiding it by the accused appellant in his possession; and the other circumstances as discussed above established the required intention of the accused that he will commit the crime and accordingly, he committed it. This Court need not go more into depth as suffice is made with the above observation and discussion to dismiss the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed thus affirming the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court below convicting the petitioner appellant for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment another period of six months RI U/S 302 IPC. 7. 2000/- and in default of payment another period of six months RI U/S 302 IPC. 7. The authority, that is, the State Government is directed to make payment of the required fees of Rs. 2,500/- to Mr S.K. Muktar, learned Amicus Curiae as early as possible.