Rattan Lal vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The present case is a sad story of afamily consisting of three brothers ofwhom one has died, the other is the accusedand the third one an eye witnessto the incident, for whom the blood relationwith the living has proved to bethicker than with the one who has diedand has turned hostile. The prosecutioncase rests on the sole testimony of aneye witness Kala Bai PW-11, the widowof the victim.

The accused-appellant has been convictedfor the commission of offencespunishable under Sections 302 and 323IPC and sentenced to imprisonment forlife for the offences u/s 302 IPCand to one year's rigorous imprisonmentfor the offence u/s 323 IPC.Both the sentences were directed to runconcurrently. An appeal preferred by theaccused appellant has been dismissed bythe High Court. This is an appeal by special leave.

Rattan Lal the accused-appellant,Balaram the deceased and Gopal PW-14 are three real brothers. The prosecutioncase is that there was a separationin the family consequent whereuponBalaram (deceased) and Gopal startedliving together in one house while RattanLal, the accused-appellant separated andstarted living in a different house.

A major part of the property was takenpossession of by Rattan Lal. Gopal theyoungest brother was not given his sharewhich continued to be possessed by RattanLal. Balaram, the deceased and hiswife Kala Bai PW-11 were insisting onRattan Lal to give the legitimate share ofproperty to Gopal and that was the causeof dispute between the deceased and theaccused.

On 7.4.1991, more than a month beforethe incident in which Balaram died,there was a dispute wherein the accusedappellant had given a beating to thedeceased Balaram. The incident was reportedto police as a non-cognizable offenceunder Section 323 ICP. Balaramwas medically examined by Dr. A.K. JainPW-2 on 7.4.1991 and vide injury memoexhibit P/6 Balaram was found to havesustained five abrasions on his person,all cause by hard and blunt object like alathi. On 19.5.1991, the date of the incident,at about 7.00 p.m., Balaram wassitting on the platform outside his house.Gopal was Laos there. The accused-appellantcame there armed with lathi.There was some verbal exchange between the deceased and the accused regardingdivision of the property and shareto be given to Gopal. The accused-appellantgot enraged and opened an assaulton Balarm. Hearing the hue andcry Kala Bai, who was inside the house,came out. She and Gopal tried to intervene.The accused-appellant did notspare the interveners and dealt lathiblows on the person of Kala Bai andGopal too. Having dealt several lathiblows on the person of Balaram, thereafter,the accused-appellant ran away.

Balaram fell down severely injured. Hewas put on a cot and taken to P.S.Barnagar in a matador. The police stationis situated at a distance of about 18 kilometres form the place of occurrence.The first information report of the incidentwas lodged by Kala Bai at about 11.30p.m. Deceased Balarm, Kala bai andGopal, the three injured in the incidentwere referred for medico-legal examinationto civil hospital, Barnagar. Dr. L.A.Kapadia, PW-1 examined the three injured person. Balaram was found tohave sustained the following injuries onhis person.

Lacerated wound 4" x 1/2" x 1/2" along theright eyebrow extending upto bridge ofnose on right side.

Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x1/2" below theright eyelid.

Depressed fracture of right frontal bone.

Haematoma diffused on right side of theface.

Kala Bai wife of Balaram was found tohave sustained a defused contusion onleft leg. Gopal PW-14 was found to havesustained a defused contusion around leftelbow and abrasion on the left hand. Theinjuries to all the three were caused byhard and blunt object. The injuries sufferedby Kala Bai and Gopal were simplein nature. The injuries suffered byBalaram were all grievous in nature anddangerous to life. Dr. Kapadia advised allthe injuries suffered by Balarm to be X-rayed and also to be examined by dental surgeon.

Dr. B.K. Rawaka PW-7 dental surgeonof civil hospital, Barnagar examinedBalaram. He found the jaw of Balaram tohave been fractured. Balaram had sustained injuries on the lips and inside thecheek also. In the opinion of Dr. Rawakathese injuries were caused by a hard andblunt object.

Before any X-ray could be takenBalaram died at about 4.00 p.m. on20.5.1991. Autopsy on the dead body wasperformed by Dr. Kapadia. On internalexamination, Dr. Kapadia found depressedfracture of right frontal bone asalso of parietal bone. There was laceration in right hemisphere of brain. In theopinion of Dr. Kapadia, Balarm had diedon account of acute head injury and shockfollowing multiple injuries over skull inflicted on him before death. The lathi saidto have been used by the accused forcausing the injuries and seized by the policewas shown to Dr. Kapadia during hisexamination in the court and Dr. Kapadiaopined that injuries to Balaram could havebeen caused by such lathi.

The incident has been narrated byKala Bai PW-11 vividly. Kala Bai is a naturalwitness to the incident as in theevening time when Balaram is said tohave suffered the injuries he was sittingon the platform just outside the house andKala Bai was present inside the house.She came out on hearing the noise andwitnessed the assault by the accused onher husband. She herself has suffered aninjury while intervening to saver her husbandfrom the assault by the accused appellant. She accompanied her semiconscious husband to the police station andlodged the F.I.R. within 5 hours o thetime of incident. We have no reason todisbelieve her testimony. The same hasbeen corroborated by the promptly lodgedF.I.R., and the medical evidence. ThoughGopal PW-14 is also an eye witness tothe incident however it is writ large thathe had to choose between the brotherwho had died and the brother who wasalive. He resolved his dilemma by choosingto support the brother alive, the accused-appellant, and therefore, turnedhostile.

Though it is said that there were othervillage people present at the time of theincident but none has come forward tosupport the prosecution case. It is clearthat the villagers too have chosen not totake sides in a dispute involving the realbrothers. Kala Bai has been believed bythe learned sessions judge who recordedher statement. She has been found to bewitness of truth by the High Court andwe see no reason to take a different view.

We are, therefore, satisfied to holdthat from the testimony of Kala Bai PW-11 the prosecution case alleging the accusedappellant to have assaulted the deceasedBalaram and caused several injurieson his person is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also proved that theaccused-appellant caused simple injuryof Kala bai PW-11.

It was submitted by Dr. SushilBalwada, learned amicus for the appellantthat looking to the background and thenature of the assault, the accused-appellantcould be said to have committed anoffence of culpable homicide not amountingto murder and punishable under Section304 Part-Ii IPC. We find it difficult toagree with the learned counsel. The accusedappellant went to the house ofBalaram armed with a lathi. In the assaulthe has chosen to aim at the head, a vitalpart of the body and dealt repeated blowson the head and then at other parts of thebody. Blows on the head have been dealtwith such force as to result in fracture ofthe frontal and parietal bones causing laceration of brain matter also. The accused-appellant can safely be attributed with the intention of causing such injuries as haveactually resulted. Even if the accused-appellantdid not have the intention of causingdeath, he certainly intended to causesuch bodily injuries as he knew to be likelyto cause the death of the person to whomthe harm is caused. The manner o theassault and the nature of the injuriescaused by the accused-appellant to thedeceased clearly attract applicability of'secondly' of Section 300 of the IPC. Theoffence committed by the accused is,therefore, punishable u/s 302IPC so far as the injuries caused to thedeceased Balaram are concerned.

For theinjury caused to Kala Bai PW-11, the injurybeing simple, the accused-appellanthas been rightly convicted under Section323 IPC.

We do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Theconviction of the accused-appellant alongwith the sentences passed thereon, asrecorded by the trial court and upheld bythe High Court is maintained.

Before parting, we place on record ourappreciation of the valuable assistancerendered at the hearing by Dr. SushilBalwada, the learned amicus curiae.