Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 181 (MP)

Ghurru v. State of M. P.

2008-02-04

AJIT SINGH, RAKESH SAKSENA

body2008
ORDER Saksena, J. -- 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 6.10.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol, in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 1997, convicting him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imnprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. 2. In brief, the prosectuion case is that at about 5 O'clock in the evening of 24.3.1997 while Ramniwas (deceased) was sitting on his 'Chabutra', suddenly appellant and his father Lachhani (co-accused) reached there and abused him and on the exhortation of Lachhani, appellant inflicted a knife blow on the left side of his abdomen. Some people reached at the spot and appellant ran away. Ramniwas was taken to Primary Health Centre, Beohari. A written intimation (Ex.P-6) was sent from the hospital to Police Station Beohari intimating that Ramniwas was brought to hospital in injured condition. On receiving intimation L.P. Singh, ASI (PW10) went to hospital and gave a requisition (Ex.P-7) for medical examination of Ramniwas. On finding that an offence was committed he himself recorded first information report (Ex.P-8) on 25.3.1997. 3. Dr. Ramsanehi Pandey, Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Beohari (PW1) examined the injuries of Ramniwas. He found one incised wound 1-1/2" x 3"oblique on left side of his chest with fresh bleeding over 8th intercostal area, direction of the wound was downwards medially. The stab injury was caused by hard, sharp and pointed object. On a query being made by Investigating Officer he gave opinion that the injury found on the body of Ramniwas was dangerous to his life. 4. Ramniwas was referred to Gandhi Medical College, Rewa, where Dr. Kiran Verma (PW17) examined his injuries and found one stitched wound on the left side of his chest. The size of the wound was 1.5 cm. There was subcutaneous surgical emphysema in the chest. He was operated. It was found that there had been a perforating injury on duodenum. A report (Ex.P-25) was given by Dr. Kiran Verma. On 2.4.1997 at about 1: 15 p.m. Ramniwas died. After his death, his dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. B.K. Sharma (PW12) carried out post-mortem examination. As per his report (Ex.P-18), he found 9 injuries on his body. A report (Ex.P-25) was given by Dr. Kiran Verma. On 2.4.1997 at about 1: 15 p.m. Ramniwas died. After his death, his dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. B.K. Sharma (PW12) carried out post-mortem examination. As per his report (Ex.P-18), he found 9 injuries on his body. The injuries were partially healed and were located on his 3rd rib of left side, left side of chest, on 4th rib, left elbow, right elbow, stitched wound on 9th rib and on tibia bone. In his opinion, the aforesaid injuries were ante-mortem. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. 5. During trial, in order to substantiate its case prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The defence of appellant in his 313 CrPC statement was that of false implication due to enmity. Learned trial Judge relying on the evidence of Ram char an (PW4), Sushilabai (PW7). Shyamkali (PW8) and Ganesh (PW9) held the appellant guilty of committing murder of Ramniwas, however, finding the evidence insufficient against accused Lachhani @ Chholani, acquitted him. 6. Shri Devendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is unreliable. The evidence of Dr. B.K. Sharma (PW12), who examined the injuries, and the evidence of Dr. Ram Sanehi Pandey (PW13), who performed the postmortem examination is inconsistent. Dr. Ram Sanehi Pandey found many injuries on the body of deceased whereas only one injury was found by Dr. B.K. Sharma. Learned counsel submitted that since only one injury was inflicted by the appellant, his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not justified, at the most he could be convicted under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the appellant is continuously in custody since 8.4.1997. On the other hand, Shri T.K. Modh, Deputy Advocate General, for the State submitted that the injury inflicted by the appellant was dangerous to life. He had caused the injury on the chest of the deceased, which is a vital part of the body, as such his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is fully justified. 7. We have heared the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Ramcharan (PW4) has testified that while Ramniwas was sitting on his 'Chabutra', suddenly co-accused Lachhani and his son Ghurru (appellant) reached there. 7. We have heared the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Ramcharan (PW4) has testified that while Ramniwas was sitting on his 'Chabutra', suddenly co-accused Lachhani and his son Ghurru (appellant) reached there. Ghurru hit Ramniwas and ran away. He saw an injury on the right side of the abdomen of Ramniwas. Sushilabai (PW7), wife of Ramniwas, testified that while her husband was sitting on 'Chabutra', she was standing nearby. At that time accused Lachhani was hurling abuses to her husband. Suddenly appellant dealt a knife blow to her husband and ran away. Khajli @ Shyamkali (PW8) testified that while Ramniwas was sitting on 'Chabutra', both the accused came over there, accused Chholani exhorted appellant by saying on which Ghurra inflicted a blow by a gupti in the abdomen of Ramniwas. The evidence of aforesaid eye-witneses finds corroboration from the testimony of Belabai (PW1) and Mahesh (PW2), who testified that when they reached at the spot, Ramniwas told them that Ghurru had assaulted him by a gupti. The evidence of eye-witnesses is further corroborated from the evidence of Dr. Ram Sanehi Pandey (PW1), who examined the injury of Ramniwas and found one stabbed wound on the left side of his chest. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses we are satisfied that the prosecution has clearly established that the appellant had inflicted knife injury on the left side of abdomen of deceased. 9. So far as medical evidence is concerned, Dr. B.K. Sharma, who performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ramniwas, testified that he found 8-9 healed injuries on the body of deceased. All these injuries were ante-mortem in nature. However, for determination of the nature of injuries he suggested reference to the injury report. Though Dr. Sharma stated that the aforesaid injuries were not caused by surgical process, but his statement is rendered doubtful in view of the testimony of Dr. Kiran Verma (PW17), who examined the injuries of deceased at the time when he was alive and was referred to Gandhi Medical College, Rewa, for the treatment. According to Dr. Kiran Verma, she had found only one injury on left side of the chest of deceased, which was already stitched. She testified that in the hospital the patient was subjected to operation as there was perforating injury in his duodenum. Ramniwas had died in the hospital on 2.4.1997. According to Dr. Kiran Verma, she had found only one injury on left side of the chest of deceased, which was already stitched. She testified that in the hospital the patient was subjected to operation as there was perforating injury in his duodenum. Ramniwas had died in the hospital on 2.4.1997. The injury report (Ex.P-19) revealed only one incised wound on the body of deceased when he was examined by Dr. Ram Sanehi Pandey (PW13). The fact that only one injury was caused by the appellant is further reinforced by the requisition (Ex.P-7) sent by Investigating Officer to Assistant Surgeon, Beohari, for medical examination of Ramniwas. In Ex.P-7 it is clearly mentioned that there was only one wound on the left side of his abdomen. Thus, it is clearly established that appellant had caused only one stab injury on the chest of the deceased. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the circumstances of the case the offence does not fall within the ambit of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as it cannot be said that the appellant had the intention to commit murder of the deceased. On perusal of the evidence of eye-witnesses it is apparent that none of the witnesses could give the genesis of the occurrence. Ramcharan (PW4) deposed that suddenly appellant hit Ramniwas and ran away. Similarly, Sushilabai (PW7) deposed that Ghurru stabbed her husband and ran away. Shyamkali (PW8) deposed that co-accused Chholani exhorted appellant whereupon he inflicted a gupti blow on the abdomen of Ramniwas. Evidence of Shyamkali that co-accused had exhorted the appellant, was not found trustworthy by the trial Court, therefore, accused Lachhani @ Chholani was acquitted. On appraisal of the above evidence it appears to us that appellant had suddenly dealt a knife blow to Ramniwas and had run away without waiting and watching that the deceased had died or not. In the above circumstances, the inference that appellant intended to cause the death of deceased can never be reached. It was something like hit and run. It cannot be said that the appellant intended to inflict that particular injury, which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. In the above circumstances, the inference that appellant intended to cause the death of deceased can never be reached. It was something like hit and run. It cannot be said that the appellant intended to inflict that particular injury, which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. In the circumstances herein discussed, it would appear that the appellant inflicted an injury which he knew to be likely to cause death, and the case would accordingly fall under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 11. We accordingly partly allow this appeal. The conviction of appellant from one under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to one under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, which he has already undergone as he is in jail since 8.4.1997. The sentence of fine is affirmed. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.