1989 Supreme(Raj) 903
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.K.Sharma, J.
Heera Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cri. Appeal No. 46 of 1982.
Decided On : 7-11-1989
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Rajendra Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.H. Khan, P.P.
The distinction between sections 307 and 308, IPC, and the essential ingredients required to establish an offense under section 308, IPC, including the proof of grievous injury as defined under section 320, IPC.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - SECTION 308, INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTIONS 307 AND 308, IPC - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - PROOF OF GRIEVOUS INJURY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 320, IPC - CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS FOR SENTENCING IN CASES OF SIMPLE INJURY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Heeralal, was convicted by the trial court for offenses under sections 308 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for inflicting knife wounds on Ranglal during a dispute over a field. The appellant claimed self-defense, but the trial court rejected this defense and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 for the offense under section 308, IPC, and no separate sentence for the offense under section 324, IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the appellant was not guilty of an offense under section 308, IPC, as the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were grievous or sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court held that the injuries were simple in nature and did not fall within the definition of grievous injury under section 320, IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was guilty of an offense under section 308, IPC, for inflicting knife wounds on Ranglal. 2. Whether the injuries inflicted by the appellant were grievous injuries as defined under section 320, IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court distinguished between sections 307 and 308, IPC, stating that section 307 is attempt to murder, while section 308 is attempt to commit culpable homicide. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, as required for an offense under section 308, IPC. 2. The court interpreted section 320, IPC, and held that the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were grievous injuries. The court noted that the doctor's opinion that the injuries were grievous was based solely on the fact that Ranglal remained in the hospital for 20 days, but there was no proof that he suffered severe bodily pain or was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during that time.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal. The appellant was acquitted of the offense under section 308, IPC, and instead found guilty of an offense under section 324, IPC, for causing simple injury. The court sentenced the appellant to the imprisonment he had already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 200, in default of which he would undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th Jan. 1982, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Baran (for short, "the ASJ"), by which, the appellant has been found guilty of offences under sections 308 & 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 4 months' rigorous imprisonment; and no separate sentence for the offence under section 324, IPC, was passed.
2. The alleged incident had taken place on 7th July, 1980, at about 10' clock in the noon, at Village - Pipalkhedi. One Babulal lodged a report at the police station, alleging that he and his brother Ranglal had gone to their field to sow 'Jawar'; while they were ploughing the filed, they field the 'Khud' near the boundary of Kana accused. Kana and Kalyan started removing the same. At this, Babulal tried to stop them; but, Kana and Kalyan abused him. Then Gopal ran to beat Ranglal; and Babulal was beaten up by Gopal. Suddenly, Heeralal came from the village and gave knife-blows to Ranglal. On this report, a case under sections 307/148 & 149, Indian Penal Code was registered.
3. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 5 accused persons under sections 147, 307, 324, 325 & 325/149, IPC.
4. The trial court framed charges against Gopal under section 147, 307, 325/149, 324 & 325, IPC, and as against the other accused persons under sections 147, 307, 325/149 & 324, IPC. After completing the trial, the trial court accepted the theory of self-defence of the accused persons except or. behalf of Heeralal; and all the four accused persons were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Heeralal was, however, not found guilty under sections 307, 147 & 325/149, Indian Penal Code and was acquitted of these charges; but, he was found guilty of offences under sections 308 & 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced as mentioned above.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has come to the finding that the complainant-party had entered into the field of the accused persons; and four accused persons were acquitted on the ground of their self-defence. The same is the case of the present appellant. The field belonged to Heeramal. The other accused persons, namely. Dwarka and Kalia are the sons of Heeralal, Kana is the brother of Heeralal, while Gopal is the son of Kana. So, all the accused persons belong to one family and the field was of the accused persons and the complainant-party had entered into it. Therefore, the trial court has rightly believed the theory of self-defence of Heeralal.
6. The entire record was perused. Heeralal was not present when the dispute had taken place. The other four accused persons were ploughing their field, and the dispute arose between them on one side and the complainant-party on the other, and both the parties inflicted injuries to each other. It is in the evidence that the accused persons had also injuries on their bodies. Heeralal who had arrived there from the village after the starting of the dispute, seeing that his son and brother were being beaten up by the members of the complainant-party, inflicted two knife-blows to Ranglal. No doubt, Heeralal also had injuries on his body, but those injuries cannot be said to have been received prior to his infliction of knife- blows to Ranglal. So, the theory of self-defence was not applicable to Heeralal; and the trial court has correctly not accepted this theory. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the appellant that he had also inflicted the injuries in his self-defence.
7. The question to be seen is whether an offence under section 307, IPC, has been established again, t accused Heeralal or not. S. 308, Indian Penal Code says that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act, caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amoun
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
