Ramesh Khandewal vs State of Assam

N.S. Singh, J.—Heard Mr. S.K. Muktar learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Rajkhowa learned P.P. for the State.

The appellant namely Remesh Khandewal has been convicted with imprisonment for life coupled with fine of Rs. 2,000 only, and in default of payment thereof another six months R.I. u/s 302 IPC in terms of the judgment dated 19.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions case No. 95(S)/1997 u/s 302 IPC Reference to G.R. case No. 27/97 which is the subject matter under challenge in the appeal.

The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows :

One Bhuda Tanti the adopted son of the informant was stabbed with a knife on his chest by the accused Ramesh Khandowal at Bhimajuli Forest and as a reason of which the deceased succumbed to injury. The case of the prosecution is that after committing the crime the accused run away but he was caught by the Police Party and accordingly; a case was registered being case No. 14/97 u/s 302 IPC at Biswanath Chariali Police Station. The accused was tried. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted with imprisonment for life coupled with a fine as mentioned above.

Mr. S.K. Muktar, the learned Amicus Curiae at a very outset contended that there was no intention on the part of the accused appellant to kill the victim. Supporting his submission the learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our attention to the evidence of the prosecution witness particularly PW No. 3 and submitted that the accused was called "thief by the victim and that being the position, the accused took out a knife and hit Bhuda and it was on the spur of the moment and there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased Bhuda. The learned counsel also argued that there was one blow on the body of the victim and therefore, the offence so far committed by the accused could not come within the purview of Section 302 of the IPC. In this regard the learned Amicus Curiae also drawn our attention to the evidence adduced by the Doctor and also the Medical Report. According to leaned Amicus Curiae, there was only one incised would at right side on chest near sternum obliquently placed at nipple line about 1" x 1/2" x Chest cavity.

At this stage, supporting the case of the appellant, the learned Amicus Curiae has cited the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and contended that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death or causing particular injury could not be imputed to him ; and single blow by knife on chest of victim causing his death would not amount to murder. It is also argued that in that case Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) the accused appellant who made single blow by knife on the chest of the victim was not intentional and his conviction for an offence u/s 302 IPC and, his sentence to imprisonment for life was set aside by the Apex Court though the High Court affirmed the conviction made by the trial court. Now, we are to see and examine as to whether the learned trial court had rightly convicted the accused person or not the related judgment.

There are two eye witnesses that is the PW 3 & 4. We have perused the evidence on record as well as the Judgment passed by the trial court. According to us, the evidence of those two eye witnesses are corroborated each other on the material and factual facts inasmuch as it was the present accused appellant Ramesh Khandolwal who stabbed with the knife on the chest of the deceased who died instantaneously on the sport. It is true that there was on blow and one incised would on the right side of the chest but, the gravity of the blow so made by the accused with knife on the chest of the victim is very high.

Lacerated fracture on the 5th rib of the right side at sternal and at cartilage ; ploura which has been lacerated and the cavity of its was full of blood which caused the death of the victim instantaneously. In this regard we hereby recall the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Dhupa Chamar and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 3217 and in that case, the Apex Court had dealt with the related provisions of law and the related issue of "one blow" and, also earlier related decisions of law in the matter including Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) as cited by the learned Amicus Curiae on the elated issue and, exhaustively dealt with the nature of weapon like knife etc. The relevant observation of the Apex Court on the issue in question finds its place at paragraph 13 of the Judgment in Dhupa Chamar and Ors. v. State of Bihar (supra) which is relevant in the present case and accordingly, it is quoted below :

"13. In the case of Mahesh Balmiki @ Manna Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , accused gave a single fatal blow with knife on the chest on the left side of the sternum between the costal joint of the 6th and 7th ribs, facturing both the ribs and track of the would going through the sternum, pericardium, anterior and posterior after passing the ribs and thereafter entering the liver and perforating a portion of stomach. There, conviction u/s 302 of the Penal Code was upheld by the High Court and when appeal was brought to this court by Special Leave, while confirming the conviction u/s 302, this Court observed thus at page 322-323.

Adverting to the contention of a single blow, it may be pointed out that there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A Single blow in some cases entail conviction u/s 302 IPC in some cases u/s 304 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 of knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him."

Keeping in view of the above provisions and principles of law, we are of the view that we have to see and examine the evidence on record pertaining to the existence of the nature of the Single blow which may attract the provisions of Section 302 IPC or not ? It may also be noted that in all such cases, the Court is to examine as to whether such Single blow attracts Section 302 of the IPC or not ? In the instance case, as discussed above, there was single blow and as such blow has its gravity to the highest degree which caused the fracture on 5th Rib of the right side at sternal and at cartilage and apart from that, Ploura was lacerated and cavity was full of blood thus causing the death of the victim instantaneously because of the existence of the fractures. It also may be noted that carrying the knife and holding it by the accused appellant in his possession and the other circumstances as demand above established the required intention of the accused that he will commit the crime and accordingly, he committed it. This court need not go more into depth as suffice is made with the above observation and discussion to dismiss the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed thus affirming the impugned Judgment of the learned Trial Court below convicting the petition appellant for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of payment, another period of six months. R.I. u/s 302 IPC.

The Authority, that is, the State Government is directed to make payment of the required fees of Rs. 2,5000 to Mr. S.K. Muktar, learned Amicus Curiae as early as possible.