1983 Supreme(Raj) 510
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Babulal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 1977.
Decided On : 20-10-1983
The intention to cause death or an injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is an essential element for conviction under Section 307 IPC. In the absence of such intention, the accused can be convicted under Section 308 IPC for causing an injury with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 307 IPC - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - DELAY IN LODGING REPORT - SECTION 308 IPC - SENTENCE - SECTION 360 CR. PC.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Babulal was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, for the offence under Section 307 IPC for inflicting a knife injury on the stomach of Ram Chandra, causing a perforation of the greater curvature of the stomach. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the grounds of insufficient evidence, undue delay in lodging the report, and the applicability of Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eye witnesses, corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the knife, established that the appellant had inflicted the injury on Ram Chandra. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the report was delayed, considering the seriousness of the injury and the immediate medical attention required for the victim. However, the court held that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 307 IPC as the intention to cause death or an injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature was not established. Instead, the court convicted the appellant under Section 308 IPC for causing an injury with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt under Section 307 IPC. 2. Whether there was an undue delay in lodging the report. 3. Whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eye witnesses, corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the knife, was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The court found that the delay in lodging the report was not undue, considering the seriousness of the injury and the immediate medical attention required for the victim. 3. The court held that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 307 IPC as the intention to cause death or an injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature was not established. Instead, the court convicted the appellant under Section 308 IPC for causing an injury with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC were set aside. The appellant was convicted of the offence under Section 308 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-. The appellant was given the protection of Section 360 Cr. PC, and he was not required to undergo the sentence if he furnished a personal bond and a surety to keep the peace and be of good behavior for two years.
JUDGMENT
1. - Appellant Babulal was tried before the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on charges under Sections 307 and 326 IPC. The Addl. Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 30-9-/977 while acquitting the appellant of the offence Under Section 326 IPC convicted him of the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Ghanshyamdas (PW 1) has his shop at Sadar market near clock tower at Jodhpur. On 28th May, 1977 at about 10 p.m. Ram Chandra (PW 6), the brother of Ghanshyamdas was standing in front of the shop and Asharam (PW 3), Mevaram (PW 4), Gaffar (PW 5) and Tajkhan (PW 7) who were employees of Ghanshyamdas were also standing outside the shop and were cutting jokes with each other. At that time the appellant passed by and asked the servants as to why they were fighting and when they told the appellant that he was nobody to interfere in their matter, a quarrel took place between the appellant and the servant and appellant gave a slap to Asharam. When Ram Chandra asked the appellant as to why he had slapped his servant, the appellant gave a blow with the knife on the stomach of Ram Chandra and thereafter the appellant ran away. A written report (Ex. P 1) was given by Ghanshyamdas to Narain Singh ASI, In-charge, police Out-post Girdikot on 29th May, 1977 at 4 a.m. and on the basis of the said report an FIR was recorded at police station Sadarbazar Jodhpur on 29th May, 1977 at 6 a.m. and a case under Section 324 and 397 IPC was registered. The case of the prosecution is further that immediately after the occurrence the injured Ram Chandra was taken to Mahatma Gandhi hospital, Jodhpur where his injuries were examined by Dr. P. Dayal (PW 9) on 28th May, 1977 at 11.05 p.m. vide injury report Ex, P. 5. According to the said injury report Ram Chandra had an incised wound 2cm x 0.3 cm on the abdomen about 1.5 cm to the left of umbilious (transverse) and omentum was protruding through the wound along with clots of blood. An operation was performed on 22th May 1977 at 1.30 a.m. and during the course of operation the abdomen was opened by left paramedian incision. On opening the abdomen blood and a few clots came out. Exploration revealed a small perforation at the greater curvature of stomach through which clots were coming out. During the course of operation, the perforation of the stomach was closed. The investigation was conducted by Narain Singh (PW 11) who prepared the site plan Ex. P 2, the memo of site inspection Ex. P 3 and also seized the blood stained clothes of Ram Chandra vide memo Ex. P 9. The appellant was arrested on 9-6-1977 vide arrest memo Ex P 10. After his arrest he gave information vide memo Ex. P 7 on 10-6-1977 about his having concealed a knife in the house of his maternal grand father and in pursuance of the said information a knife was recovered from the house of Bishanmal vide memo Ex. P 4. After completing the investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant and the appellant was committed for trial to the court of Sessions and charges Under Sections 307 and 324 IPC were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined eleven witnesses. Asharam (PW 3), Mevaram (PW 4), Gaffar (PW 5), Ram Chandra (PW 6) and Tajkhan (PW 7) have been examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Ghanshyam Das (PW 1) lodged the FIR, Kastoor Chand (PW 2) is the attesting witness of the site plan Ex. P 2 and memo of site inspection Ex. P 3. Asandas (PW 8) is the attesting witness of the memo Ex. P 4 with regard to the recovery of the knife. Dr. P. Dayal (PW 9) is the medical officer who had examined the injuries on the person of Ram Chandra (PW 6) and has pr
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
