Harlal vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Justice Brij Kishore Dube

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/04/11 passed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2010 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harlal), convicting the appellant u/s 302 of IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer additional six months rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Prosecution story, in brief, may be narrated as under:

(i) That, on 30/03/2010 at about 10.00 A.M., the complainant, Jaswant Singh (P.W.1) brought Ranveer (since deceased) resident of village Ghatvar in an injured condition to the Police Station, Pathariya in a jeep and lodged report to the effect that at about 9.30 A.M., he was sitting on a chabutara. Upon hearing the shriek of Satendra Singh (P.W.5) and Hari Om that Harilal inflicted kulhadi (axe) to Ranveer, he rushed at the place of occurrence and found that Ranveer was lying on the ground and blood was oozing from the left side of his neck. He provided support of his (Ranveer''s) neck with his (Jaswant Singh) hands. The accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Ranveer (deceased) told him that in regard to some money transaction, Harlal (accused) with an intention to kill him attacked and gave blows with Kulhadi (axe) over the neck.

(ii) That, on the basis of the aforesaid information, FIR was registered at Crime No. 47/10 (Exhibit P/1) under Sections 307 & 294 of IPC by Maheshpal Singh Jadon, Assistant Sub Inspector (P.W.9). The criminal law was triggered and set in motion. The injured was sent to for medical examination;

(iii) That, injured, Ranveer died on the way to hospital. Inquest on the dead body was prepared and the dead body was sent to for post mortem (Exhibit P/9). The case was altered from Section 307 to 302 of the IPC;

(iv) That. on 30/03/2010 at 12.00 Noon Dr. Brij Mohan Singh Datta (P.W.14), conducted the post mortem of the deceased at Rajeev Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Sironj and opined that death occurred due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of excessive bleeding on account of cut of jugular vein and artery;

(v) That, the investigating agency reached to the spot, prepared spot map (Exhibit P/2), seized the simple and blood stained earth (Exhibit P/8) and sent the seized articles for Serological & Chemical Examination to FSL, Sagar (Exhibit P/12), Investigating agency also recorded the statements of the witnesses who were acquainted with the facts of the offence,and

(vi) That, during investigation, the accused has been arrested vide arrest memorandum, Exhibit P/6 and on the basis of the disclosure statement, the weapon (Kulhadi), used in the commission of offence has been seized from the accused person and sent it also for chemical examination. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused before the committal Court, which on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable u/s 302 of IPC against the appellant/accused, The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused person is of false implication and the same defence, he set forth in his statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/13, the documents on record. The accused has not been examined any witness in his defence.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that charge u/s 302 of IPC has been proved against the appellant as a result of which convicted him and passed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

In this manner, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.

Legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction has been challenged by the appellant on the ground of mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Aijaz Gouri, has submitted that the appellant has been falsely roped in the case. There were material contradictions in the evidence of so called eye-witnesses and there was no cogent evidence to establish the ingredients of offence u/s 302 of IPC against the appellant. The learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant, hence, this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charge.

An alternate submission has also been put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no intention or pre-plan of the appellant to kill the deceased and the incident had taken place all of a sudden. There were some altercations between the appellant and the deceased and on a sudden quarrel single blow was inflicted, therefore, the case of the appellant would come within the purview of Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC and, hence, his conviction be altered from Section 302 to Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC.

On the contrary, Shri Prabal Solanki, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court and submitted that the conviction in question is well merited.

In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in a proper perspective, it would be necessary to advert to the evidence available on record.

P.W.1, Jaswant Singh has reiterated the allegations as recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector, Maheshpal Singh Jadon (P.W.9) in the FIR (Exhibit P/1) at his instance only. He categorically stated that at the relevant point of time, he was sitting on a chabutara. On information given by Satendra Singh and Hari Om regarding the incident, he rushed to the scene of occurrence and found that Ranveer was lying on the ground and blood was oozing from the injury over left side of his neck. Harlal ran away from the scene of occurrence. On a query, Ranveer (the deceased) told him that Harlal has assaulted him with an axe. P.W.1, Jaswant Singh further stated that he took the injured Ranveer to the Police Station, Pathariya in a jeep where he (Jaswant Singh) lodged the report (Exhibit P/1) and put his signature on it. Thereafter, he took the injured, Ranveer from the Police Station to Hospital, Sironj but while getting him down from the jeep, he died. Nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination so as to suggest that he was interested in securing the conviction of the appellant on absolutely false ground. The testimony of Jaswant Singh (PW 1) gets corroborated by the promptly lodged FIR (Exhibit P/1).

According to Satendra Singh (P.W.5) at about 9.30 A.M., on the date of incident he was in conversation with Hari Om near the Community building of his village. At that time, Ranveer came on motor cycle from his fields. At that juncture, accused, Harlal who was standing there having an axe dealt a blow which struck over the left side of neck of Ranveer as a result of which Ranveer fell down on the ground and Harlal ran away from the spot. He (Satendra Singh) rushed to inform the incident to his father (Jaswant Singh) who was sitting at chabutara and informed him accordingly. The evidence of the eye-witness, Satendra Singh (P.W.5) is corroborated by the testimony of P.W.6 Dheeraj Singh. P.W.7, Deshraj and P.W.8, Suresh Singh who have also witnessed the incident.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out how and in what manner the evidence of P.W.5, Satendra Singh, P.W.6 Dheeraj Singh, P.W.7, Deshraj and P.W.8, Suresh Singh should be disbelieved. On the other hand we find that their testimony inspires full confidence, since, it is clear, cogent and trustworthy.

The evidence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. According to the Assistant Sub Inspector, Maheshpal Singh Jadon (P.W.9), he prepared the inquest (Exhibit P/2) and sent the dead body of the deceased, Ranveer to the hospital for post mortem examination. The Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. Brij Mohan Singh Datta (P.W.4) while proving the post mortem report (Exhibit P/9) of the deceased, Ranveer found the incised wound on the left side of neck. According to Dr. Brij Mohan Datta (P.W.4), the death occurred due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of excessive bleeding on account of cut juglar vein and artery.

Therefore, looking to the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, according to us, learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the deceased had died on account of causing the injury by the appellant.

We shall now advert ourselves to the alternate submission put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is settled law that intention of accused is gathered from the nature of weapon used, part of chosen for assault and other attending circumstances. The Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Balmiki @ Manna Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, has held that there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction u/s 302 IPC, in some cases u/s 304 IPC and in some other cases u/s 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 or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him. The Apex Court in the case State of Rajasthan Vs. Dhool Singh, held that the number of injuries is irrelevant. It is not always the determining factor in ascertaining the intention. It is the nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury which are the indicators of the fact whether the respondent caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not.

In the instant case, it is true that the appellant had dealt one single blow with an axe on a vital part of the body, namely; the neck. This act of the appellant though solitary in number had severed the mussels, jugular vein and artery leading to almost instantaneous death. Any reasonable person with any stretch of imagination can come to the conclusion that such injury on such a vital part of the body with a sharp edged weapon would cause death. Such an injury not only exhibits the intention of the appellant in causing the death of the deceased but also the knowledge of the appellant as to the likely consequence of such attack which would be none other than causing the death of the victim. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajastan (supra) and Mahesh Balmik (supra).

So far as the altercations between the appellant and the deceased and a sudden quarrel is concerned, though P.W.8, Suresh Singh deposed that some time appellant Harlal had worked with the deceased, Ranveer as a ploughman but he had left the same much before the incident. According to Jaswant Singh (P.W.1) and Satendra Singh (P.W.5) and Dheeraj Singh (P.W.6), Deshraj (P.W.7) and Suresh Singh (P.W.8), there was no altercation or quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased at the time of occurrence. It has also not proved that in the heat of passion or on loss of self-control, the appellant had caused injury to the deceased. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there are no reasonable grounds to alter the conviction from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC.

We have gone through the reasonings assigned by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant u/s 302 of IPC and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in it. The judgment is based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record and further we do not deviate ourselves from the reasonings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Hence, we extend our stamp of approval of the reasonings, finding and conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the appeal is hereby dismissed.