Bakhtawar and Another vs State of Haryana

Jaswant Singh, J.—The Appellants, Bakhtawar and his son, Sathir, who were charged and tried u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. (herein after referred to as the Penal Code) for causing the death of one Balbir Singh, their co-villager, were convicted u/s 304 Part II of the Penal Code and were sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each by the Session Judge, Rohtak by his judgment and Order dated May 15, 1971. While the Appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court against their conviction and sentence, the State filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Sesstions Judge acquitting the Appellants of the offence under S .302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The High Court by its judgment and Order dated Sept. 16, 1971 found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Appellants u/s 302 read with Section 31 of the Penal Code Accordingly, it altered the conviction of the Appellants from the one u/s 304 Part II read with Section 30 of the Penal Code to the u/s 302 of the Penal Code and enhanced the sentence of each of them to life imprisonment remitting the fine. It is against this judgment and order that the Appellants have come up in appeal to this Court.

The case as put forth by the prosecution was. On July 20, 1969 at about 3 00 P M Balbir deceased while ploughing this land noticed the Appellants cutting bushes from his 'Johari' and taking it to the land which was in their possession as mortgagees from one Phule. Thereupon, the deceased prevented the Appellants from doing so whereupon both the Appellants launched an attack on him, Bakhtawar, Appellant inflicting injuries on his arm and other parts of the body with a lathi and Sathir giving blows on his head from the wrong side of gandasi. On seeing the occurrence, Richhpal and Maida (P.Ws. 4 and 5) who had gone to Sheo Chand's well situate near their fields to quench their thirst rushed to the place of occurrence and extricated the deceased from the clutches of the Appellants who had become unconscious as a result of the injuries inflicted on him by the Appellants Richhpal, (P.W. 4.) went and reported the matter to the village Sarpach named Risal Singh P.W. 8. On being informed about the matter, Risal Singh, (P.W. 8) accompanied by Richhpal (P.W. 4) arrived at the scene of the occurrence and removed the deceased to the Civil Hospital Beri where he succumbed to his injuries shortly after admission. On the expiry of the deceased, Dr. Ram Lal Gulati (P.W.2) Incharge, Civil Hospital, Beri sent Ruqa (Exh. P.C ) to the Police Station, Beri on receipt whereof, S.I. Ram Singh, (P.W. 10) went to the hospital and recorded the statement (Ex. P.B.) of Richhpal (P.W. 4) on the basis whereof a case u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code was registered against the Appellants. After preparing the inquest report, the S.I. sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Dr. T.R. Bhalla (P.W. 1) who performed the autopsy found 12 injuries on the body of the deceased which he detailed in the Post Mortem Report (Exh PA) and opined that injuries Nos. 11 and 12 which were grievous were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. After sending the body for Post-mortem examination the S.I. reached the place of the occurrence and recorded the statement of Maids (P.W. 5) The S.I. also posted a constable to guard the place of the occurrence and on the next morning seized soma blood from there vide Exh. P.F. and arrested the Appellants. After the usual investigation, the Appellants were proceeded against in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jajjar, who committed them to the Court of Session to stand their trial u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

On a consideration of the evidence the Sessions Judge found that the Appellants did not have the intention of causing the murder of Balbir but had only the knowledge that the injuries caused by them were likely to cause his death. Accordingly he convicted them u/s 304, Part II of the Penal Code read with S 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them as stated above. Both the Appellants and the State felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Sesstions Judge and preferred cross appeals with the result as indicated above.

Mr. K.C. Sharma appearing on behalf of the Appellant has urged that on the evidence adduced in the case no offence can be said to have been made out against the accused and that in any case, the offence, if any, did not amount to murder u/s 302 of the Penal Cede. We are unable to accede to these contentions. From the evidence of Richhpal (P.W. 4) and Naida (P.W. 5) it is established beyond any manner of doubt that while Bakhtawar, Appellant infiicted injuries on the arm and other person of the deceased, Satbir gave a number of blows on the head of the deceased resulting in the following injuries :

I. One contused wound 11/4" x 1/2" bone deep on the dorsum of the left hand near the knuckle of the left index finger. It was caused by blunt weapon.

One contused wound 2" x 1/4" bone deep on the dorsal aspect of the left index finger in the proximal and middle phalynx, the proximal phalynx was fractured.

The injury was of grievous nature and was caused by blunt weapon. Two contused wounds 3/4 x 1/4" and 1/4" x 1/4" bone deep on the posterior aspect of left elbow joint. The wound was one inch apart from each other. It was caused by blunt weapon.

One contused wound 3/4 x 1/2" skin deep on the posterior aspect of the right fore arm in the middle part.

One contused wound 1/3 x 1/4" skin deep on the posterior aspect of the right fore-arm 3" below the elbow joint.

One contusion mark 2" x 1" on the interior aspect of the right knee joint.

One contusion mark 2" x 7/8 on the interior aspect of the left knee joint.

One abrasion 3" x 1/4" on the left hypochondriac region of abdomen 7" above the anterior illiac spine.

One contused wound 1" x 1/2" skin deep on the posterior aspect of the left side of the chest over the scapular region in the lower part.

One contusion mark 3" x 1-1/2" on the left buttock on the upper and outer quadrant.

One contused wound 2" x 3/4" bone deep en the left parietal region of the scalp 4 above the Pinna of the left ear. There was fracture of the left parietal bone and the injury was of grievous nature and caused by blunt weapons.

12 One contused wound 1-1/2 x 1/2" bone deep on the right parietal region of scalp 1/½' above the pinna of the right ear. There was fracture of the right parietal bone. The injury was of grievous nature and caused by blunt weapon.

The evidence of these two eye witnesses is trustworthy and there is no reason to discard the same. The evidence of these two witnesses receives ample corroboration not only from the statement of Risal Singh (P.W. 8) but also from the testimony of the doctor who has opined that out of the injuries detailed above injuries Nos. 11 and 12 were grievous and were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. Fsr the commission of the offence of murder it is not necessary that the accused should hive the intention to cause death. It is now well settled that if is proved that the accused hid the intention to inflict the injuries actually suffered by the victim and such injuries are found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of case death, the ingredients of clause (sic) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code are fulfilled and the accused must be held guilty of murder punishable u/s 302 of the Code Reference in this connection may be made to he decision of this Court in Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab 1958 S.C.R. 1995 and State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another, There is to our mind that the accused in the present case had the intention to cause the injuries found on the body of the deceased. As already stated those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The ratio of the two decisions just above cited, therefore, applies fully to the facts of the instant case.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.