Hari Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.K. Gangele, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/06/1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 09/1997, whereby appellant has been convicted u/s 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and he has further been convicted u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 07-11-1996 Tarachand (PW2) and deceased Jagdish were cultivating their land. Jaswant (PW3) was grazing his buffaloes over one portion of the land. There were some shells of groundnuts lying there. At that time, appellant Hari Singh along with his family members were taking out groundnuts. After some time, accused Ramjilal and Laxman Prasad came on the spot in a bullock cart. Accused Tarachand put the shells of groundnuts on fire. On this, there was a quarrel between the parties. Accused Ramjilal abused. At that time, appellant-accused Hari Singh took out a wooden log from the bullock cart and inflicted injury over the head of Jagdish as a result of which Jagdish fell down on the ground. Accused Laxman Prasad and Ramjilal caught hold of Tarachand (PW2). Appellant-accused Hari Singh inflicted injuries over the head of Tarachand (PW2). It is further alleged that appellant-accused also inflicted three-four injuries over the head of deceased Jagdish by wooden log of the bullock cart. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot.

The report of the incident was lodged at police station Gaswani. After completion of investigation and other formalities by the police, charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused persons before the competent Court, from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

During trial, the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded their innocence. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence, acquitted accused Laxman from the offence u/s 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused Ramjilal from the offence u/s 302/ 34 of IPC but convicted present appellant Hari Singh for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 325 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly, as stated above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court committed an error of law in holding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in alternative, the appellant could be convicted u/s 304 Part II of IPC looking to the evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that the sentence awarded by trial Court to the appellant be modified accordingly and it be reduced to the period already undergone by him because the appellant has already completed three years and five months jail sentence. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following judgments:-

(I) Bagdi Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and

(II) Ranjitham Vs. Basavaraj and Others,

Contrary to this, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is enough evidence available on record to hold the appellant guilty for an offence u/s 302 of IPC. He further submitted that the appellant caused sufficient injuries which resulted into death of deceased Jagdish. Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant u/s 302 of IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of the trial Court.

The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has committed an error in holding the appellant-accused guilty for the offence alleged against him, could not be accepted because the report of the incident was lodged at police station Gaswani on the same date at about 19:25 hours by injured Tarachand (PW2). Tarachand (PW2) specifically stated in the FIR that appellant and other accused persons inflicted injuries to him and the deceased. A wooden log of bullock cart was also seized from the possession of appellant vide seizure memo Ex. P-11(A). There are total four eye-witnesses in the incident. Tarachand (PW. 2) lodged the report at the police station who is an injured eye-witness. Jaswant (PW3), Kallu (PW6) and Jasram (PW7), all the eye-witnesses have deposed in their statements that there was a quarrel between the parties and the appellant-accused inflicted injuries by wooden log of a bullock cart to injured Tarachand (PW2) and deceased Jagdish. The injuries sustained by the deceased and injured Tarachand (PW2) have been corroborated by medical evidence. In our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellant-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

However, we find substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that offence against the appellant-accused could not be made out u/s 302 of IPC. As per version of the FIR and the statements of injured-eye-witness Tarachand (PW2) and other eye-witnesses in the morning of the date of incident, deceased Jagdish and his brother Tarachand had been ploughing the land and some shells of groundnuts were lying over the land and some of groundnut shells were kept for animals. At that time, accused Ramjilal put fire on the heap of groundnut shells. When deceased Jagdish and Tarachand (PW2) objected the said act, there was some quarrel and in a heat of passion appellant took out a wooden log from the bullock cart and inflicted injuries over the head of Jagdish and inflicted another blow over the head of injured Tarachand (PW2). Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot. All the eye-witnesses have repeated the same version and their evidence is consistent.

Dr. G.S. Verma (PW1) who had examined injured Tarachand (PW2) as per MLC report (Ex. P/2) found following injuries on the body of the injured:-

(1) Lacerated wound on the parietal region of the scalp on left side, vertical in direction, bone deep, bone exposed and hairline fracture seen on it, size 5x1 cm, bleeding stop but oozing out after cleaning it.

(2) Whole eye wall (both lids) are blackish but eye NAD.

(3) Typical lathi bruise on the left arms on ante-aspect, horizontal in direction 3 x 2 cm in size.

The doctor who had also examined deceased Jagdish as per MLC report (Ex. P/4) found following injuries on the body of deceased:-

(1) Lacerated wound on frontal region of scalp, horizontal in direction 4 x 1 cm in size bone under wound fracture & huge bleeding with whitish material coming out through this wound.

(2) Whole right eye lids surrounding are swollen with blackish colour, eye not be opened due to swelling.

(3) Abrasion of left middle of thigh antero-lateral aspect 2 x 1 1/2 cm in size.

(4) Hematoma on the scalp 6 x 2 cm in size on vertex with in-crouching the pro-vial area of scalp.

The acquitted accused Ramjilal had also received injuries in the same incident. As per MLC report (Ex. P/6), Dr. G.S. Verma (PW1) found following injuries on the body of Ramjilal:-

(1) Abrasion on the post (black) left side below the scapula oblique in direction 4 x 1/4 cm in size in some portion scab present.

(2) C/o pain in right upper thigh in inner aspect but no injury found on examination.

(3) Healed abrasion on left side of chest near the epigastric region vertical in direction 3 x 1/4 cm in size.

(4) Healed abrasion 1 cm lateral to injury No. 3 & 2 x1/4 cm in size.

Dr. J.N. Soni (PW10) who had conducted post mortem of deceased Jagdish as per Ex. P. 21A found following ante mortem injuries on body of the deceased:-

(1) Surgically stitched wound present over left tempero parietal region having 8 stitches 10 cm long.

(2) Surgically stitched wound 12 cm above the nassion having 3 stitches 2.5 cm transversely placed.

(3) Abrasion present 5 cm below right nipple 5 x 1 cm scab present.

(4) Abrasion with scab resent over supero-posterior aspect of right shoulder 5 x 1.5 cm vertical.

(5) Abrasion with scab postero-lateral aspect of left thigh lower third (6x 2 cm).

As per opinion of the doctor, the death of the deceased was due to respiratory failure as a result of head injury. Injury caused by impact of blunt object. Duration of death was within 24 hours since post mortem examination. Nature of death should decide on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

From the evidence of Dr. G.S. Verma (PW1) and Dr. J.N. Soni (PW10), it is clear that one of accused persons, namely, Ramjilal had also received injuries in the same incident over his body. It means that there was a quarrel between the parties. From the evidence of prosecution, it is also clear that the quarrel took place due to sudden provocation because accused Ramjilal put fire on groundnut shells and in that event, accused appellant took out a wooden log from the bullock cart and thereafter he inflicted injuries over the head of deceased Jagdish. As per evidence of Dr. J.N. Soni (PW10), injury on the head of deceased was fatal in nature. The deceased died four days after the incident.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjitham (supra) after considering the earlier judgments of the Court, has held as under in regard to conviction only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s 304 Part II of IPC:-

In AIR 1983 185 (SC) there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant had remarked that the deceased must be beaten to make him behave. He thereafter ran inside the house, brought out a jeli and thrust it into the chest of the deceased. This Court observed that (SCC p. 194, para 3) in the heat of altercation between the deceased on the one hand, and the appellant and his comrades on the other, the appellant seized a jeli and thrust it into the chest of the deceased. This was preceded by his remark that the deceased must be beaten to make him behave. Therefore, it does not appear that there was any intention to kill the deceased. This Court, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant u/s 302 IPC and instead convicted him u/s 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

In Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , in a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow on the chest of the deceased. This Court observed that the quarrel had taken place on the spur of the moment. There was exchange of abuses. At that time, the appellant gave a blow with a knife which landed on the chest of the deceased and therefore, it was permissible to draw an inference that the appellant could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death but since there was no premeditation no intention could be imputed to him to cause death. This Court, therefore, convicted the appellant u/s 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

In Hemraj Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 1999 SCC (Cri.)713 : 1999 Supp. SCC 291, the appellant and the deceased had suddenly grappled with each other and the entire occurrence was over within a minute. During the course of sudden quarrel, the appellant dealt a single stab which unfortunately landed on the chest of the deceased resulting in his death. This Court observed that (SCC p. 295, para 14) as the totality of the established facts and circumstances show that the occurrence had happened most unexpectedly, in a sudden quarrel and without premeditation during the course of which the appellant caused a solitary injury to the deceased, he could not be imputed with the intention to cause death of the deceased, though knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which is likely to cause death could be imputed to him. This Court, therefore, set aside the conviction u/s 302 IPC and convicted the appellant u/s 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

In V. Subramani and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , there was some dispute over grazing of buffaloes. Thereafter, there was altercation between the accused and the deceased. The accused dealt a single blow with a wooden yoke on the deceased. Altering the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, this Court clarified that it cannot be laid down as a result of universal application that whenever death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case. Thus, the part of the body on which the bow was dealt, the nature of the injury and the type of the weapon used will not always be determinative as to whether an accused is guilty of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The events which precede the incident will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which death was caused was done with an intention of causing death of knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of circumstances which will decide the nature of the offence.

In the present case also there was a sudden quarrel between the parties. One of the accused person who had been acquitted subsequently namely, Ramjilal received some injuries in the same incident. There was no pre-meditation nor pre-planning. The appellant had taken a wooden log from the bullock cart and inflicted injuries over the head of deceased Jagdish, which has resulted into death of the deceased. Hence, in our opinion, offence against the appellant-accused would not amount to culpable homicide amounting to murder but it would be an offence u/s 304 Part II of IPC. Looking to the nature of the case, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to award sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 302 of IPC is hereby set aside and instead he is convicted u/s 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court shall verify whether the appellant has undergone five years jail sentence including remission. In case it is found that the appellant has undergone five years jail sentence including remission, his bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. However, on verification if the trial Court finds that the appellant has to undergo some more sentence, then arrest warrant be issued against the appellant and the appellant be sent to judicial custody for undergoing the remaining jail sentence awarded by this Court.

Resultantly, the appeal is disposed of with the modification in conviction and sentence as indicated here-in-above. The Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment immediately with the record to the learned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.