Sukhram Singh, Ashok Singh and Rajiv Singh vs State of U.P. and Shiv Bhawan

Saroj Bala, J.—This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. moved for quashing of impugned order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge (S.C. & S.T.) Act, District Banda in sessions trial No. 111 of 2005 State v. Ashok Singh and Ors. under Sections 323/34 325/34 302/34 504 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C.S.T. Act whereby framing the charges against the applicants for the offences under Sections 302/34 323/34/325/504 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of S.C. & S.T. Act.

Heard Shri Rajeev Lochan Shukla holding brief of Shri Mohit Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and have perused the record.

The essential facts of the prosecution case are:

On 2.6.2005 at about 6 P.M. the applicants were putting soil in front of the door of Ram Ashery father of first informant. When the informant''s father protested to the throwing of soil, the applicants hurling abuses subjected the informant and his father to assault by wielding of lathis. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged the same day at 9.10 P.M., The injured Ram Ashery was medically examined on 2.6.2005 at 10 A.M. and L.W. in left temporal part of scalp 6 cm XI/2 Cm. 9 Cm. above left ear, L.W. in front of left side of scalp 3 Cm. X 1/2 Cm., 3 Cm. above left eyebrow and contused abrasion in right hand 5 Cm. X 1/2 Cm. at wrist joint were found. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and duration was fresh. X-ray of scalp was advised and injuries were kept under observation, In the X-ray fractures of scalp bone were seen. The injured succumbed to the injuries on 6.6.2005 at 3.30 P.M. while he was being brought home from district hospital Kanpur due to critical condition. The injured was referred on 5.6.2005 to Lucknow for further treatment, The postmortem certificate indicates fracture of left parietal and temporal bones, memberanes were found injured and huge hamotoma was present on left side. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries.

After hearing both the parties and going through the material on record and case diary learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the applicants-accused for the offence u/s 302/34 I.P.C. together with other offences.

The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that no case u/s 302 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants even if the entire prosecution case is taken on its face value the prosecution case does not travel beyond Section 304 I.P.C. The learned Counsel convassed that no intention to cause death is attributable to applicants. The submission of the learned Counsel was that the incident had taken place all of a sudden and there was no premeditation. According to the learned Counsel the injured Ram Ashery an old man died as proper medical treatment was not provided to him. The learned Counsel argued that there is cross version the First Information Report of which was registered as N.C.R. No. 57 of 2005 u/s 323 504 506 I.P.C. and persons on the side of applicants also suffered injuries. Another argument pressed into service was that u/s 221 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court had jurisdiction to frame alternate charge u/s 304 I.P.C. The contention of the learned Counsel was that the burden of proving that the case is covered within the exceptions as specified u/s 300 I.P.C. lies on the applicants by virtue of Section 105 of the Evidence Act. According to the learned Counsel the provisions of fourth exception of Section 300 I.P.C. are applicable to the present case and charge u/s 304 I.P.C. should have been framed instead of Section 302 I.P.C.

The learned A.C.A submitted that lot of confusion has been created by the learned Counsel for the applicants without understanding the true scope and meaning of terms used in various clauses of Sections 299 I.P.C. and 300 I.P.C. The learned Counsel argued that there is appreciable distinction between the two offences. The learned Counsel pointed out that Clause (b) of Section 299 I.P.C. corresponds to Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300 I.P.C. The learned Counsel urged that Clause (b) of Section 299 I.P.C. does not postulate any knowledge on the part of the offender. The learned Counsel pointed out that in Clause (3) of Section 300 I.P.C. instead of words likely to cause death occurring in corresponding Clause (b) of Section 299 I.P.C, the words ''sufficient in the ordinary course of nature have been used''. The contention of the learned Counsel was that the distinction lies between a bodly injury likely to cause death and a boldly injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

The applicants used formidable weapons in mounting assault on the victim and his son (informant) who were unarmed. The injuries caused by the applicants were direct cause of death. No secondary factor such septicemia and tetanus etc. supervened. The applicants inflicted two head injuries over the victim with lathis. The head injuries with fractures hamotoma, injuries to memberanes having direct connection with death, the offence under clause thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C. is made out.

For application of exception (4) to Section 300 I.P.C. the act must be committed (i) without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion; (ii) upon a sudden quarrel; (iii) without the offender''s having taken undue advantage; and (iv) accused having not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The applicants having taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel and callous manner in mounting assault on a aged person with formidable weapons there is no cogent ground to hold that their act does not amount to murder. The deceased was unarmed and had not caused any injury to the applicants even following a sudden quarrel. The applicants having inflicted fatal blows on the scalp of deceased exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. is not attracted. The applicants having caused head injuries with injury to brain and fracture of parietal and temporal bones, the probability of death was great and requirement of Clause thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C. is satisfied and fourth exception does not apply though incident was sudden. Moreover, the question of applicability of fourth exception remains open for consideration at the sentencing stage after the appraisal evidence.

In the backdrop of the above discussion, the learned trail court has committed no illegality by framing the charge u/s 302/34 I.P.C. instead of charge u/s 304 I.P.C. The impugned order dated 23.11.2006 is confirmed. The application moved for quashing of the said order is hereby rejected.