1996 Supreme(Raj) 1236
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Mohammed Yamin, J.
Lala Ram s/o Nenu Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 1980.
Decided On : 22-08-1996
The court held that the injury inflicted on Gula Ram was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and therefore the case did not travel beyond Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with hurt.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE - GRIEVOUS HURT - SECTION 326, INDIAN PENAL CODE - HURT - SECTION 324, INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION OF INJURY AND ITS SEVERITY - DELAY IN RECORDING STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES
Fact of the Case:
Accused appellant Lala Ram was convicted under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code for inflicting a knife wound on Gula Ram's stomach. The Sessions Judge sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 for the offense under Section 307 and two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 for the offense under Section 326. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant did inflict the knife wound on Gula Ram, but the injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court also found that there was no delay in recording the statements of the witnesses that would create doubt in their credibility.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant inflicted the knife wound on Gula Ram? 2. Whether the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature? 3. Whether there was a delay in recording the statements of the witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the testimonies of five eyewitnesses who saw the appellant inflict the knife wound on Gula Ram. 2. The court found that the injury was simple in nature and did not cause imminent danger to life. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to provide details about the operation performed on Gula Ram and the reasons why the injury was considered dangerous to life. 3. The court found that there was no delay in recording the statements of the witnesses that would create doubt in their credibility.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Sections 307 and 326 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT
1. - Accused appellant Lala Ram was tried and convicted Under Sections 307 & 326, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. Learned Sessions Judge passed the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence Under section 307 Indian Penal Code. For the offence Under section 326, Indian Penal Code sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- was passed and it was ordered that in default of payment of fine, the accused appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He also ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently. He further ordered that after Case falls Under section 324 Indian Penal Code realisation of the amount of fine, Rs. 300/- will be paid to the heirs of the injured. It is against this conviction and sentence that appellant has preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
2. Briefly stated on 29.12.1978 Gula Ram injured was passing through the market in village Kawas. Accused appellant inflicted a knife blow in his stomach. His brother PW 1 Kushal was called by Tulchha Ram to the place of occurrence. PW 1 Kushal took the injured Gula Ram to Government Dispensary, Kawas. He was advised to take the injured to Government Hospital, Barmer where he reached alongwith the injured. Injured Gula Ram was admitted in the hospital at about 4.30 p.m. His statement was recorded by ASI Jalam Singh. In his statement (Ex. P/19), Gula Ram gave story that he had gone with Tulchha Ram to a barber's shop for hair cutting. When he was returning, accused appellant met him near the shop of Taga Ram. Narsa Harijan also met them. All of them were talking, then accused appellant came and inflicted a knife blow in his stomach. Gula Ram fell down. Then his brother was called who took him to hospital. A case was registered and after investigation, challan was presented. Learned Sessions Judge tried and convicted the accused appellant as stated above.
3. During the investigation, after the accused appellant was arrested he gave an information leading to recovery of knife which was recovered at his instance. It was sent for chemical examination. Blood smeared soil was also taken and sent for chemical examination.
4. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and defence examined only one witness. Out of them, PW 2 Tulchha, PW 3 Nanga, PW 4 Narsing Ram, PW 5 Taga Ram and PW 8 Narsa Ram Harijan are the eye-witnesses. Injured Gula Ram died before he could be examined by the prosecution. The prosecution examined two doctors and they are PW 6 Dr. Shyam Sunder and PW 7 Dr. Madan Lal Calla.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that statements of eye-witnesses have been recorded with delay and this makes the whole case doubtful. He further submitted that the injury caused to Gula Ram was not dangerous to life. According to him, it was not even grievous. Lastly, he submitted that the case of the accused appellant does not travel beyond Section 324, Indian Penal Code and since the accused appellant has been in custody for about three months and there are mitigating circumstances, therefore, if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, it will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor contended that there was no delay in recording statement of witnesses. He further submitted that the injury in the stomach of Gula Ram was sufficient to cause death and in the end, he also submitted that there are no mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused appellant.
6. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel. The first question before me as to who caused injury to Gula Ram. PW 1 Kushal Singh has stated that he was called by Tulchha Das and he reached at the spot immediately. He found his brother lying on the road and
Click Here to Read the rest of this document