The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention or knowledge to cause fatal injuries under the Indian Penal Code, influencing the court's decision to modify the appellant's conviction.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant–Sant Ram against a judgment dated 29.01.2007 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 107/05 arising out of FIR No. 23/05 PS I.P. Estate by which he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 325 IPC. By an order dated 12.02.2007 he was sentenced to undergo RI for three and a half years with fine Rs. 1,000/-.

2. Concisely stated, the case of the prosecution leading to the trial of the appellant for commission of offence under Section 304 IPC was that on 13.01.2005 at about 08.30 p.m. at Public Street, opposite Railway Office, Tilak Bridge, ITO, Delhi, he gave a violent push to the victim–Ganga, as a result of which, her head struck against the road and she sustained internal head injuries. She expired on 16.01.2005 in the hospital. Police machinery swung into action on receiving information about the occurrence vide Daily Diary (DD) No. 56B (Ex.PW-8/A) at 08.47 p.m. at PS I.P. Estate. The investigation was assigned to ASI Ram Niwas who with Const. Vikrant went to the spot. After recording statement of the complainant–Suraj (Ex.PW7/D), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. On 16.01.2005, information was received vide DD No. 22A (Ex.PW-8/C) that the victim had succumbed to the injuries. Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for committing offence under Section 304 IPC. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 Cr. P.C. statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and denied his involvement in the crime. He examined DW-1 (Rambir) in defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant under Section 325 IPC. It is pertinent to note that State did not challenge the acquittal under Section 304 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. It is not in dispute that on 13.01.2005, the appellant had gone at the residence of complainant–Suraj to demand money borrowed by him. When the complainant expressed inability to pay the borrowed amount that time, a quarrel ensued between them. In the scuffle, both PW-7 (Suraj) and the appellant came out in the street. Victim Ganga–complainant’s wife rushed outside to intervene. It is alleged that the appellant gave a forceful push to her as a result of which, she sustained head injuries. The victim was taken to J.P.N. Hospital immediately and was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW-5/A) at around 09.00 p.m. The alleged history records that the victim assaulted approximately half an hour ago at Sanjay Amar Colony had suffered swelling over occipital region approximately 3 cm x 1 cm. She was unfit to make statement. Finally, she succumbed to the injuries and expired in the hospital on 16.01.2005. PW-6 (Dr. Sunil) conducted post-mortem examination on the body and proved report (Ex.PW-6/A). Injury No. 1 i.e. Contusion 7 cm x 3 cm present over right temporal occipital region of head was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Cause of death was due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head. All the injuries were opined ante-mortem in nature. In 313 Cr. P.C. statement the appellant did not deny the injuries sustained by the victim in the occurrence. His defence is that when she rushed out of the house on seeing them quarrelling, she stumbled against the pavement and got injuries after fall.

4. Crucial testimony to prove that victim Ganga sustained injuries due to push given by the appellant is of PW-7 (Suraj). In his statement (Ex.PW-7/D) to the police at first instance, he gave detail