Mulak Raj vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Chaudhary, J.

The appellant along with his two coaccused was tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. His coaccused were acquitted but the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Her has appealed against his conviction and sentence.

This case relates to an occurrence which took place on 15.3.1987 at 8 00 P. M. within the revenue estate of Shahi Mohalla and Police Station Kotwali in district Ludhiana. At that time Paramjit Khosla (deceased), Surinder Kumar and Surinder Mohan Sood (PW4) were present in front of the house of Basant Lal when the appellant and two others. came there and started uttering filthy words. They were objected to by Surinder Mohan and others on the pretext that it was a residential locality and people lived there with families. There was an altercation between the two sides attracting Gurdev Krishan (PW5) to the scene. The companions of the appellant caught hold of Paramjit Khosla and the appellant took out a dagger from his dab and gave blow with it on the chest of Paramjit Khosla. The appellant was overpowered by the witnesses at the spot. The matter was reported to the police by Surinder Mohan upon which a case under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered. Paramjit Khosla succumbed to the injury sustained by him and ultimately the offence was amended to one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Assistant Sub Inspector Amar Singh (PW6) on receipt of the information visited the hospital and then the spot from where he picked up the blood and took into possession dagger Exhibit P.1 lying on the ground. The appellant was found present there in the supervision of Gurdev Krishan and two police officials.

The postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Samir Dogra (PW1) who noticed one injury on his person :

"Over incised wound measuring 1" x 1/2 on the left side of chest 11/2 lateral to the midline anteriorly and 2 below the left nipple."

In his opinion the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injury on vital organ i. e. heart which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The same day this witness also medico legally examined the appellant and found as many as four injuries on his person. He found that the appellant had consumed alcohol but was not under its influence when he was examined.

At the trial the plea of the appellant was that it was a false case. Some unknown persons had murdered the deceased and when he tried to save him they also caused injuries to him and the witnesses had not actually seen the occurrence. No evidence in his defence was, however, led by the appellant.

The trial Court accepted the prosecution case and held that admittedly the appellant was present at the spot. No doubt he had alleged that the witnesses were deposing falsely against him, but no explanation was given by the appellant in that regard. Nor the appellant had alleged any enmity against any of the witnesses. Accordingly the appellant was convicted and his companions were acquitted, as stated above.

The only argument canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that only one blow with dagger was given by the appellant and that too was the outcome of sudden provocation and as such the offence falls within the ambit of Section 304, PartI of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the deceased received only one injury on his chest with a dagger which is a sharp edged weapon. The prosecution case principally rested on the testimony of two eye witnesses. It is evident from the testimony of Surinder Mohan (PW4) who is the author of the first information report, that when the appellant and his companions used filthy language, they were objected to by the deceased saying that it was a residential area. But the appellant pounced upon the deceased and when his companions had secured the deceased, the appellant gave a dagger blow on the left side of the chest of the deceased. Gurdev Krishan (PW5) testified that the appellant and his coaccused were grappling with the deceased and within his sight the deceased was given a dagger blow by the appellant on his chest. The question for our consideration is whether the offence committed by the appellant is murder or it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

It is clear from Clause it of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code that a culpable homicide is murder if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient to cause death. It is evident from the evidence of the prosecution that the injury sustained by the deceased was the one intended to be caused by the appellant and it was not an accidental. once it is held that the injury was in fact, intended to be caused, it has to be seen in the light of medical evidence as to whether the bodily injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased had found one injury on the chest of the deceased and this fact, finds ample corroboration from the ocular version given by the eye witnesses. He had further found that there was corresponding cut on the banyan and wooled. Jersy of the deceased. On exploration, he found that the intercostal muscles between 10th and Ilth ribs of the deceased, were punctured. According to the doctor, the injury sustained by the deceased was antemortem in nature and was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. It is not the case of anyone that the deceased died due to any supervening cause. The fact that the appellant aimed the dagger blow on the chest of the deceased clearly reflects the state of mind of the appellant which leaves no room for any doubt to conclude that it was the intention of the appellant to cause the precise injury. The case of the appellant would thus, be covered by clause 3rdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, he would be guilty of the offence of murder. Not much can be made if there was some provocation. The intention of the appellant was crystal clear from the testimony of the eye witnesses whose evidence has not been shaken despite fishing crossexamination.

In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentenced of the appellant are confirmed.