The judgment established the importance of proving the intention to cause a specific bodily injury and the sufficiency of the injury to cause death in cases of culpable homicide under Section 300 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the sole appellant herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Judge by which she has been convicted for offences under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149 & 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, rigorous imprisonment for one year and imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month, respectively, with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution is that on 9-4-2014 at 7:00-8:00 a.m., at Village Beliya, Police Station Chalgali, the appellant herein along with four acquitted co-accused persons constituted unlawful assembly with common object and in furtherance of common object, the appellant herein squeezed/caught hold of the testicles of Rambasawan by which he suffered grievous injury and died, and also caused simple injuries to Nandkeshwar and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1 and morgue was also registered vide Ex.P-2. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and the dead body was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Kamini Rai (PW-11) vide postmortem report Ex.P-23 and cause of death according to the postmortem report is anemia due to injury to the vital organ of the body i.e. haemorrhage as testicles were totally smashed.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused/appellant herein along with four acquitted co-accused persons was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 148, 302 read with Section 149 & 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the learned Additional Judge received the case on transfer for trial and hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

4. The accused persons abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The defence has examined none, however, exhibited two documents Exs.D-1 & D-2 – statements of Mathura Prasad & Shyamlal Gupta recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.

5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted four co-accused persons and convicted only the appellant herein holding her guilty for aforesaid offences against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred.

6. Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the alleged act of squeezing/pulling the testicles of deceased Rambasawan would not be covered by clause Thirdly to Section 300 of the IPC, therefore, it is not culpable homicide amounting to murder, at the most, it would fall under clause Eighthly of Section 320 of the IPC and therefore it would be punishable under Section 325 of the IPC. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Shivalingaiah, AIR 1988 SC 115 to buttress his submission.

7. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent, supports the impugned judgment and opposes the appeal and submits that considering the fact that testicles of the deceased were smashed by the act of the appellant, the appellant has rightly been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. In the postmortem report Ex.P-23 proved by Dr. Kamini Rai (PW-11) as also before the Court, she has stated that test