1978 Supreme(Raj) 171
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R.L.Gupta, J.
Jagga & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 123/74.
Decided On : 27-02-1978
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:S.T. Porwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: D.L. Mehta, Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution must establish that the accused had the intention to kill or cause an injury that could have resulted in death in order to prove an offence under Section 307 IPC.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307 INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION ALTERED TO SECTION 326 INDIAN PENAL CODE - SENTENCE REDUCED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Jagga, was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting to murder Bhura by inflicting a 'Kulhari' blow on his head. His wife, Mst. Raji, and son, Rupa, were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 109 and 323 IPC for abetment and causing simple hurt, respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that Jagga had the intention to kill Bhura or cause an injury that could have resulted in death. The court also found that the incised injury caused by Jagga was a grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, Jagga, had the intention to kill Bhura or cause an injury that could have resulted in death. 2. Whether the incised injury caused by Jagga was a grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish that Jagga had the intention to kill Bhura or cause an injury that could have resulted in death. The court relied on the fact that there was no evidence of a motive or enmity between Jagga and Bhura, and that the attack was likely motivated by anger over Bhura's goats entering Jagga's field. 2. The court held that the incised injury caused by Jagga was a grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 IPC. The court relied on the fact that the injury was a stellate fracture of the right parietal bone, which is a type of fracture in which there are numerous fissures radiating from the central point of injury.
Final Decision: The court altered Jagga's conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and reduced his sentence to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 100/-. The court maintained Mst. Raji's conviction and sentence for causing simple hurt.
JUDGMENT
1. - This criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed in appeal No. 6/71 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur on 15.2.1974. That appeal was preferred against the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udaipur on 30.1.1971.
2. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Udaipur, convicted the petitioner Jagga under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to under go further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months, Petitioner Mst. Raji who is the wife of Jagga, and Rupa who is the son of Jagga were also convicted Under Section 307 read with Section 109 and 323 Indian Penal Code. For the offence Under Section 307 read with 109 Indian Penal Code each of there was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo ample imprisonment for a period of two months.
3. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant Jagga for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. He however set aside the conviction and sentence of Mst. Raji and Rupa for offence under Section 307 read with 109 Indian Penal Code and they were acquitted of the same. The conviction and sentence of Mst Raji Under Section 323 Indian Penal Code were maintained. The conviction of Rupa Under Section 323 Indian Penal Code was maintained but he was given the benefit of the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and he was released on probation of good conduct.
4. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentence Jagga and Mst. Raji have preferred this revision.
5. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 17.4.1969 at about 3.30 pm. Rupa and his son Bhura were on the well called 'Bhartiya'. The goats of Bhura entered into the field of Jagga in which the crop of chillies was growing The petitioners Jagga and Mst. Raji and their son Rupa were there in the field and they started giving beating to the goats and hurled abuses. Bhura went to the field of Jagga to take out the goats. Mst. Raji & and Rupa started giving him beating and jagga gave a 'Kulhari' blow on the head of Bhura Rupa the father of Bhura when he went to rescue his son was also hurled which stones by Mst. Raji and the accused Rupa. On alarm being raised by him Dau and Ajaba reached there to rescue them. Some more persons had also reached on the spot. Rupa the father of Bhura, logged the report Ex. P. 13 at the police station Bhim on the same day at 6.30 pm. Rupa and Bhura were examined for there injuries at the Todgarh Dispensary by Dr. A.K. Tiwari found on the person of Bhura an incised wound 21/2" x 1/2 x bone deep on the left side of the head in the region of parietal bone and 2 bruises on the right arm and right hand, The injury No. 1 was caused by sharp weapon while injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused by blunt weapon X-ray was conducted on 22.5 1969 in the General Hospital, Udaipur and it was opined that there was a stellate fracture of the right parietal bone. Five simple injuries caused by some blunt weapon were found on the person of Rupa vide injury report Ex. P. 11. Accused Jagga was arrested by the police on 15.5.1969 and on his information 'Kulhari' was recovered on the some day. After investigation the petitioners and their son Rupa were challaned and were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udaipur. They were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is no independent evidence against the petitioners. Dau has turned hostile. Bhura and Rupa are interested persons. Ajaba has deposed that lie has not seen 'Kulhari' in the hands of jagga. Moreover the recovery of the 'Kulhari' is not
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
