Vickey @ Rahul vs State of M.P.

Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.

Appellant herein stands convicted u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 177/1999 on 9-12-2000.

2(a). Prosecution''s story as unfolded before the trial Court is that on the date of incident at between 2.00 to 3.00 O''clock in the noon Umar (PW-8) had been to purchase curd from the market. While he was on his way, appellant Vickey arrived there with sword in his hands. Other co-accused persons Mohan and Govind caught hold of Umar (PW-8) and appellant Vickey @ Rahul struck him with sword. Umar (PW-8) sustained injuries on hand and parietal region. Umar (PW-8) somehow managed to escape and he ran away from the spot while appellant Vickey and other co-accused persons Mohan and Govind were chasing him. Umar (PW-8) reached near the rikshaw of Mukku @ Mukhtiyar (PW-7) and fell down on the ground there. Then Mukku @ Mukhtiyar (PW-7) Yusuf @ Mithun (PW-10) carried him to Police Station, Station Road, Ratlam where First Information Report (Ex. P/6) was made by Mukku @ Mukhtiyar (PW-7).

2(b). Police registered criminal case and sent Umar (PW-8) to District Hospital, Ratlam for treatment and medical examination where Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW-2) examined him and prepared medical report (Ex. P/2). Police prepared spot map etc. and recorded statements of witnesses. During the investigation, appellant Vickey was arrested and sword used in the incident was recovered at his instance. Disclosure memo (Ex. P/3) was prepared by the police u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and on the strength of disclosure made therein sword was recovered and seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/4). After conducting the necessary investigation, police filed challan against the appellant and other co-accused persons Govind Singh and Mohan Singh.

Learned trial Court levelled charges u/s 307 and alternatively u/s 307/34 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant as well as other accused persons Govind Singh and Mohan Singh. Appellant and other accused persons abjured their guilt and trial was held against them and after trial accused persons Govind Singh and Mohan Singh were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, but appellant Vickey was held guilty of commission of offence punishable u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Hence, he has preferred this appeal.

The testimony of Umar (PW-8) is reliable to the extent that the appellant caused him injuries with sword on left hand and on parieto occipital region. His testimony in this regard is corroborated by the other oral evidence of corroborative nature and medical evidence also.

The fact that appellant caused injuries to Umar (PW-8) is established by the prosecution. Even otherwise the appellant has not given any serious challenge to the above fact. The sole submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted on the face of it, the offence punishable u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has force in it as there is no evidence to the effect that injuries found on the person of Umar (PW-8) were dangerous to life or were in the ordinary course of nature sufficient to cause his death. It is true that there may be cases where simple injuries are caused or even no hurt at all is caused, yet the accused could be held guilty u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code, but the case in hand is not of that nature.

In order to hold an accused person guilty u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code, it has to be seen whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge of causing death of the victim and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder i.e. it should be of causing the death of the victim. The nature of the injuries caused is also a relevant consideration while inferring the intention. Where from the other surrounding circumstances, the intention to cause death is crystal clear no need to look at the nature of injuries would arise otherwise nature of the injuries inflicted would have to be considered.

In the present case, the circumstances are not of such nature which may lead to the conclusion that the act of the appellant irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge of causing death of the person assaulted i.e. Umar (PW-8). According to Umar (PW-8) sword blow was dealt on his head. The fact that blow was dealt on any vital part in itself will not necessarily suggest that the intention was to cause the death. The force with which the blow was dealt is also an important and relevant factor in judging the intention. In the absence of any oral evidence regarding the fact that blow was inflicted with what degree of force, the size, depth and nature of the injuries shall be of relevance and importance. In the case in hand, there is no evidence that much or how much force was used in dealing the blow. Therefore, the nature of injuries would have to be looked into.

Learned trial Court has not given any importance to the nature of the injuries inflicted and convicted the appellant only on the ground that the sword was used and the blow was inflicted on the head and appellant chased the injured. The reasoning and the conclusion of the learned trial Court appears to be erroneous and in the absence of any evidence to the effect that any of the two injuries caused to Umar (PW-8) was dangerous to his life or was in ordinary course of nature sufficient to cause his death, it could not be gathered that intention of the appellant was to cause death of Umar (PW-8). The conviction of the appellant u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code does not seem to be proper and legal.

From the testimony of Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW-2), it appears that he opined that the injured sustained fracture of fourth metacarpal only after having a look at the injury and advised X-Ray Examination of the injury. Dr. Dhulchand Boriwal (PW-11) conducted X-Ray Examination of both injuries sustained by Umar (PW-8) and according to his testimony and X-Ray Report (Ex. P/15), no fracture was found due to any of the injury. Thus, the injuries sustained by the injured Umar (PW-8) appears to be of simple nature. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could be held guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code at the most, has force in it. The evidence on record could only establish that the appellant dealt sword blows on Umar (PW-8) and caused simple injuries to him thus he did an act punishable u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant u/s 307, Indian Penal Code is altered to that u/s 324 of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand rupees only); in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Out of the fine amount Rs. 2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred rupees only) shall be paid to injured Umar s/o Riyasat R/o Mochipura (PW-8) as compensation. Record be returned.