IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant can be attributed knowledge that when he used a lathi forcefully on the head of the person (with whom he has animosity), he was likely to cause death of the said person. Thus his conviction cannot be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 304-Nature of offence-Appellant convicted for causing murder of Kehar with whom he had animosity-Discrepancy in evidence of PW 9 (injured eye witness) in ocular account (stating 3 lathis attacks) and medical evidence (showing one lathi attack)-Whether benefit of doubt be given? (No)-Whether single lathi resulting in death should result in conviction under Section 304 instead of Section 302 ? (No, because of medical evidence and motive)-Result-Appeal dismissed.
Held : Since the two courts below have chosen to place reliance on the evidence of PWs. 9 and 10 which we do not consider to be either unreasonable or perverse, we are also inclined to accept the same. If that be so, it is clear that this appellant had dealt a blow on the left parietal side of the head of the deceased consequent to which the deceased has died, therefore, the High Court is justified in coming to the conclusion that this accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the finding of the High Court on this count. Learned counsel then argued that since the appellant has dealt only a single blow, the offence if at all, cannot be the one falling under section 302 IPC or at the most, it would come under section 304, Part II, IPC since there is absolutely no material to show that the appellant had any knowledge that he would be causing an imminent death of the deceased. In this regard we have examined the medical evidence and the manner in which the assault in question has taken place. The doctor has opined that the injury was caused in such a manner as to cause the death of the deceased which on dissection found by the doctor, had caused a fracture of the left parietal bone causing extra dural haemotoma. The doctor has opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and as a result of the head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. We are of the opinion that the appellant must be attributed with the knowledge that when he used a lathi forcefully on the head of a person, he was likely to cause death of the said person, the prosecution has also proved that this appellant had the intention to kill the deceased, therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of learned counsel on this count also. For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (Paras 8, 9 & 10)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Appellant Suraj Bhan and four others were charged for an offence punishable under Sections 148, 302, 325 & 323 read with Section 149 IPC for having committed the murder of one Kehar Singh on 20-3-1989 at about 8 a.m. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 3.3.1992 convicted all the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. It also sentenced the accused before it for offences under Sections 148, 149 and Section 325 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149. In appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the High Court acquitted accused Ram Nivas A-3, Santosh A-4 and Darshan A-5 of all the offences charged against them, giving them the benefit of doubt. While it convicted Jagmender A-1 for an offence under Section 325 IPC and confirmed the sentence awarded on this count by the learned Sessions Judge. However, in regard to the appellant before us in these appeals, it confirmed the conviction awarded to him under Section 302 IPC and under Section 323 IPC and the sentence awarded by the trial court on these two counts were affirmed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 325 IPC awarded by the Sessions Court was however set aside.

2. It seems that both Jagmender, A-1 and the present appellant Suraj Bhan preferred this appeal but from the records, we notice that the appeal of Jagmender A-1 came to be withdrawn on the ground that he had already served the sentence imposed on him, therefore, Suraj Bhan is the lone appellant before us in this appeal.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a week before the incident, namely, 20-3-1989, Ram Gopal, son of the appellant was caught plucking plums from the trees standing in the field of Kehar Singh, deceased, for which he was reprimanded by deceased Kehar Singh and his father Zile Singh. On this count, the appellant and his family members entertained an animosity against the deceased. On the date of the incident namely on 20-3-1989 at about 8 a.m. when the deceased Kehar Singh and PW-9 Mehar Singh, were returning from fields, they were attacked by the appellant and other acquitted accused persons with lathis and bricks, consequent upon which the deceased suffered severe head injuries. It is also stated that PW-9 also received injury in this attack. It is the prosecution case that after the attack the accused persons fled from the scene of occurrence and the deceased and PW-9 were taken to the Primary Health Centre, Juan but in view of the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the deceased, the local doctor referred them to the General Hospital at Sonepat where they reached at about 4.30 p.m. PW-14, the doctor who treated the deceased and PW-9 thought it fit that the deceased should be sent to the Medical College Hospital at Rohtak, hence, while treating PW-9, he sent the deceased to the said hospital at Rohtak. The further case of the prosecution is that in view of the fact that PW-9 Mehar Singh had to attend an examination, he went back to his place while deceased Kehar Singh was taken to the hospital by his uncle. After completing the examination, it is stated that PW-9 came to the hospital at Rohtak in the evening when he came to know that his brother had died so an intimation was sent to the Police Station at Gannaur where a complaint was registered and a special report was forwarded to the Ilaka Magistrate, Sonepat at 3 a.m. on 21-3-1989. Based on the said complaint, the investigating officer, PW-13 recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, filed a chargesheet against the above mentioned 5 accused persons.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-2, Dr. Satbir Singh, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Juan, had stated that on 20-5-1989 when the deceased was brought to him, he was in a very serious condition and he could not treat him appropriately, hen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1263

IMPORTANT POINTAppellant can be attributed knowledge that when he used a lathi forcefully on the head of the person (with whom he has animosity), he was likely to cause death of the said person. Thus his conviction cannot be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC.

IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant can be attributed knowledge that when he used a lathi forcefully on the head of the person (with whom he has animosity), he was likely to cause death of the said person. Thus his conviction cannot be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC.