IMPORTANT POINT
There cannot be any hard and fast rule to say that a single blow on a vital part would not fall within the definition of Section 302 RPC and it should always fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-I or 304 Part-II of RPC. However, this depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case.

ORDER

Virender Singh, J.—Vide impugned judgment dated 7.3.2007 of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch, appellant Shahab Din son of Mohd. Din, Caste Quershi, resident of Jallian, (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’), stands convicted under Sections 341/302 RPC and has been sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302 RPC and one month under Section 341 RPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The judgment of conviction has been sent to this Court for confirmation under Section 374 Cr.P.C. We, therefore, intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal. No. 4 of 2007 and Confirmation No. 2 of 2007.

In brief, the case of the prosecution is as under:

2. Munir Hussain is the deceased in this case. His father is the first informant, who alleged that on 3.6.2002, the deceased was going to village Jallian to request the villagers to help him in cultivation of rice saplings. At about 4.30 p.m., when he was passing by the road adjoining the house of the accused at Jallian, he was assaulted by the accused with a danda which landed on his head, consequently, he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the accused lifted a stone and struck the same repeatedly on the head, eye, abdomen and other parts of body of the deceased. He became unconscious was brought to the Police Station, Mandi by some persons who reached the spot. FIR was initially registered under Sections 341, 307 RPC. The police swung into action. The Investigating Officer prepared injury memo of the deceased and referred him to District Hospital, Poonch. However, he died on the way. The offence was then converted from Section 307 RPC to Section 302 RPC. After that the investigation was taken over by SHO, who got the post-mortem conducted by the concerned doctor, went to the spot, prepared the seizure memo of the blood-stained earth and also lifted a stone from the place of occurrence. Accused was arrested by him, who, pursuant to his disclosure statement, got a danda (lathi) recovered. An opinion was sought from the doctor with regard to weapon vis-a-vis the injury and the doctor opined that the injury was caused with lathi only.

3. The motive projected by the prosecution is that Atika Begum, the sister of the deceased had gone with her cattle in the vicinity of Government Primary School, Azmabad, where the accused had tried to molest her and she went to the nearby fields to narrate the incident to her brother (deceased), who went to the accused to inquire about the said incident where a scuffle ensued between the deceased and the accused had allegedly threatened the deceased to teach him a lesson. In this regard, the prosecution has produced PW Bahar Din, who otherwise has been projected as a witness to the occurrence also, along with Ghulam Ahmed, Gias Din and Abdul Ghani, the other eyewitnesses.

4. We do not feel the necessity of reproducing the entire evidence which is otherwise detailed in the impugned judgment for the reason that Mr. Ahmad appearing for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgment on merits so far main occurrence is concerned except praying for diluting the main offence, submitting that the deceased had received only one injury on the right side of his forehead and in the opinion of the doctor, the death had occurred because of the blunt trauma. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Ahmad then submits that although the police had allegedly lifted a stone from the place of occurrence but after showing the danda and stone to the doctor concerned, the opinion given by him was that possibility of the head injury was by stick and not by the stone. The learned counsel in this regard has drawn our attention to Ex. PW-AM 1. From this, Mr. Ahmad develops that the case of the prosecution as set up to the effect that after giving danda blow on the head of the deceased, who consequently fell on the ground and thereafter the accused lifted a stone and struck the same repeatedly on the head and other parts of his body, is not a true account o