Pisu vs State of M.P.

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—The appellant has filed this appeal u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Session Trial No. 334/2000 convicting him for offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for life imprisonment for commission of murder of Savsingh. In short, the prosecution case may be stated as under:--

On 16-5-2000, a quarrel took place between appellant-Pisu and his brother-Vajesingh, as Pisu was objecting the proposed mortgage of land by Vajesingh on account of need of money. After altercation, he started inflicting blows by the blunt side of the axe on Vajesingh. Hearing the cry, Savsingh, who was residing nearby, reached to the spot. He tried to restrain the appellant from beating Vajesingh and took the side of Vajesingh about mortgaging the land for the need of money. On this, the appellant felt aggrieved and asked the deceased not to say anything in the matter, at the same time, the appellant inflicted three successive blows of the axe from the blunt side on Savsingh. As a result, Savsingh fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The FIR (Exh. P-8) of the incident was lodged by Vajesingh and after conducting investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for commission of the offence as alleged.

The conviction of the appellant is based upon the eye witness account of Humabai (P.W. 3) and Rajiya (P.W. 7). The incident as alleged, the death of Savsingh in the same has not been disputed by the appellant, but the only point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court should not have convicted the appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as on the basis of evidence on record at the most offence u/s 304 Part I, was made out against the appellant. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Lalaram Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2001 (II) M.P. WN 76.

In order to consider the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we have carefully scanned the evidence on record. Humabai (P.W. 3) made a categoric statement that when her husband-Savsingh was at home, Vajesingh and the appellant were quarreling with each other on account of dispute regarding mortgage of the land. On hearing the quarrel, her husband deceased-Savsingh went to the place of incident. She also followed her husband. On reaching the place of incident, Savsingh tried to pacify both of them and asked Pisu if Vajesingh wants to mortgage his land, he may take the land and give him money. On this, the appellant became angry and told the deceased not to interfere in the matter and inflicted repeatedly three blows of the axe on him. As a result, Savsingh fell down and died Rajiya s/o Chain Singh (P.W. 7) has also stated that he and the deceased while trying to pacify the quarrel the appellant became angry and dealt with three blows on deceased-Savsingh. The evidence of these eye-witnesses about injuries is duly corroborated by Dr. P.C. Agarwal (P.W. 1), who medically examined the injuries of the deceased and conducted post-mortem.

Keeping in view the aforesaid evidence available on record, we are of the view that it is not a case which can fall u/s 304 Part I of the IPC. The appellant dealt with three successive blows from the blunt side of the axe, which has caused the death of Savsingh. It is also not a case of heat of passion on account of which it can be said that the appellant inflicted blows.

As regard the judgment passed in the case of Lalaram (supra), we find that same has got no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same is quite distinguishable. In the case of Lalaram (supra), the deceased-Shyamlal was having illicit relations with the wife of the accused. Accused objected to the affairs, but the deceased told him that he shall continue his affairs with the wife of the accused. On this, some hot talks took place and accused had given four blows by hammer on the head of the deceased. The Division Bench of this Court considering the aforesaid facts of the incident opined that it occurred all of sudden and the accused/appellant had assaulted the deceased in a heat of passion as the deceased provoked by telling he shall continue his affairs with the wife of the accused. However, in the present case, as observed, there was no question of provocation by the deceased or heat of passion to the appellant so as to inflict successive blows and kill Savsingh. No case is made out to set aside the conviction of the appellant u/s 302 and to convict him for an offence u/s 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant u/s 302 of the IPC, which is based upon the sound appreciation of evidence needs no interference and no case is made out to convert it into the conviction u/s 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.