The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the intention to kill based on the pre-meditated nature of the assault, the force used, and the resulting injuries leading to the death of the deceased.

Headnote:
MURDER - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Summary: The court discussed the evidence presented by three eye-witnesses and medical evidence to establish the pre-meditated nature of the assault, the force used, and the resulting injuries leading to the death of the deceased. The court concluded that the intention to kill was apparent from the circumstances, and the offence fell under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Police Constable, was tried for the murder of Anjanabai under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case stated that the appellant assaulted Anjanabai with an axe after she scolded him for lifting eatables from her hotel without permission.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on the evidence presented by three eye-witnesses and medical evidence, concluding that the intention to kill was apparent from the circumstances.
Issues: Contradictions in witness testimony, intention to kill, and the nature of injuries causing death were raised as issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of three eye-witnesses and medical evidence to establish the pre-meditated nature of the assault, the force used, and the resulting injuries leading to the death of the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code were upheld.

JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The appellant was tried for the murder of Anjanabai under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant who is a Police Constable had gone to the hotel run by deceased Anjanabai and he lifted eatables and started eating the same. It appears that the deceased Anjanabai objected to the same and scolded the Police Constable. The appellant then went to the Pan Shop of Sheikh Shakil Ahmad (P.W. 1) which is adjoining to the said hotel and demanded pan. P.W. 1 Shakil asked the appellant to bring change and then only he would give pan to him. Appellant left the pan shop. After about half an hour, the appellant returned to the hotel run by deceased Anjanabai, took out an axe which was hidden in his clothes and assaulted with axe Anjanabai on the head. Beside this, the appellant also gave other blows to Anjanabai. The assault took place on 16-7-1986. The prosecution had examined twelve witness in support of the charge including three eye-witnesses besides two witness in support of dying declaration of the deceased. The dying declaration was not relied upon by the trial Court. The testimony of three eye-witnesses was accepted on the basis of which the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life had pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The same is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Add1. Public Prosecutor for State.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has urged before us that there are contradictions in the testimony of witnessess; that two of the prosecution witnessess viz. P.W. 1 Shakil Ahmad and P.W. 6 Madhura have stated that their attention was drawn to the incident after deceased Anjanabai had fallen on the ground. In respect of testimony of P.W. 5 Vilas, it is urged that this witness had not stated before the Police that the appellant had inflicted blow of an axe on her head and as such, this witness was confronted with the statement in respect of which he could not assign any reason. It is also urged by learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant had neither intention to kill nor there is any evidence on record to suggest that the injuries caused were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to her, the injured had died after about eight days of the incident and in the circumstances, the offence in question would not fall under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and at the most, it may be a case of causing grievous hurt under section 326 of I.P.C. or alternatively. It may fall under section 304, Part-II of I.P.C. She, therefore, contends that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court be sustained.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. urged before us that three eye-witnesses have categorically proved the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question; that the axe blow was given with such a great force that there were compound fractures of right frontal bone resulting in bone pieces in the area of 3" X 1" which was separated from the vault. Besides this, there was fissured fracture radiating from the margine of cut-end of vault and in the brain there was contusion with blood clots in anterial cranial fosa corresponding to right orbit blood clots adherent and contusion of brain in right fronto-parito-temporal region of the base of brain. It was also pointed out by him that the assault was pre-meditated as the appellant had brought the axe hidden in his clothes and he assaulted Anjanabai with the same. According to him, the offence squarely falls under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as the intention to kill can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. He, therefore, contends that no interference is called for in the impugned order of conviction and sentence.

5. The Prosecution h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document