Back
1973 Supreme(Raj) 152
Rajasthan High Court
Tyagi & Sharma, JJ
Mohan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1970
Decided On : October 11, 1973
Thandchand Mehta and N.G. Mehta, for Appellant; R.C. Maheshwari, for State of Rajasthan
Headnote:Penal Code, Secs. 300 and 302—Where injuries inflicted with back of axe on head with such force causing fracture of parietal bones held that accused must be presumed to have inflicted injuries with knowledge that injuries were likely to cause death.
It is proved beyond doubt that M. used an axe to inflict injury on the head of Mst. T though he prosecution could not esta-blish that the axe recovered was the weapon of offence in this case. However, we cannot forget that the axe even though used from the back side caused serious injuries if the blows were inflicted with considerable force. The back side of the axe is generally heavy and if it is used with a force, then it can ordinarily cause fatal injuries if it fell on vital part of the body of the injured person. The nature of the two injuries which caused fracture of the two parietal bones suggests that a considerable force was used by M. while inflicting injuries on the head of Mst T. In the absence of any previous enmity it cannot be said that M. did not intend to cause these two fatal injuries. Whatever may be the cause of inflicting such injuries on the vital part of the body of a person we cannot say in the circumstances of this case that these two injuries were un-intentional or that M. intended to cause some other type of injuries but accidentally these serious injuries were caused. We are left with no alternative but to infer from the circumstances that M. intended to cause the injuries which were ultimately suffered by Mst. T.
Held = Looking to the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which these injuries were caused, we have no option but to hold that accused M. intended to cause the injuries on the vital part of the body v of Mst. T. which in the ordinary course of nature were found sufficient to cause death and eventually they caused death. In these circumstances, we uphold the conviction of the appellant for an offence u/sec. 302.. (Paras 25 and 26)
2. The facts as revealed by Gyanchand (P. W. 4), the only eye witness in this case, are as follows :
Gyanchand and his brother Jogender Singh were serving the accused as his Siris and they used to reaside in a Kotha situate in the same Ahata where accused Mohan Singh used to live. On 11th of March, 1969, Jogender Singh had gone out to Punjab. His wife Mst. Taro and the only child 1-1/2 years old were left in the custody of his brother Gyanchand. At about 8 or 9 in the morning Mohan Singh rebuked Mst. Taro for having committed theft of fodder from his field. It is said that Mst. Taro also called bad names to Mohan Singh At that time Mst. Taro was preparing tea in her kitchen situate outside the Kotha. Mohan Singh could not tolerate this insolent behaviour of Mst. Taro and he, therefore, gave a Kulhari blow from the sharp side on the forehead of Mst. Taro and thereafter dealt two more Kulhari blows from the wrong side on the parietal regions of the forehead of the deceaseds Gyanchand, who was saddling the camel in the same Ahata of Mohan Singh, witnessed this occurrence. He raised an alarm whereupon accused Mohan Singh ran away from that place. It is said that on hearing the alarm Pargan (P. W. 1) reached the spot of occurrence and thereafter he was followed by Swaran (P. W. 3) and then by Shankar (P. W. 2). Besides these three persons, many other persons came but it is said that when Pargan, Swaran and Shanker reached the spot of occurrence, Gyanchand told them hat Mohan Singh had inflicted Kulhari blows on the head of Mst. Taro. Shanker was then sent to Padam-pur to fetch a jeep and when the jeep was brought Mst. Taro, who was lying in an unconscious state, was shifted immediately to Padampur where she was admitted in the hospital. Dr. C. S. Bhati (P. W. 6) examined the injuries of Mst. Taro and found that she had sustained the following three injuries on her head:
(1) Incised wound 2" x 1/6" x 1/5" oblique on the right parietal region near the mid line of scalp, 1/2" away from the mid line.
(2) Lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 1/3" x 1/2" on the right parietal region obliquely running downwards and forwards from near the mid line of the scalp, 1-1/2" away from the mid line lies the posterior end of the wound.
(3) Lacerated wound 3-1/3" x 1/3" x 1/2" sagital on the left parietal region 4-1/2" above the left ear.
3. The doctor also noticed the pupils of Mst. Taro dilated. He immediately enquired from the attendants of Mst. Taro whether the matter had been reported to the police or not and when he came to know that information had not been given to the police, he sent a note (Ex. P/3) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Padam Pur that Mst. Taro wife of Jogender Singh, aged 20 years was brought to his dispensary in an unconscious state with multiple injuries on the head. The condition of the patient was serious and, therefore, the Station House Officer was requested to do the needful. It is said that the Station House Officer Shri Inder Singh (P. W. 7) sent his Head Constable and a Constable to the dispensary to find out if Mst. Taro was accompanied by any relation of hers with a direction to bring him to the police station. The Head Constable [took along with him Gyanchand (P. W. 4) to the police station where he was examined at 12.30 p. m. and that, statement of Gyanchand recorded by the Station House Officer on that very day was treated as a first information report in this case. At 12.25 p.m. Mst. Taro breathed her last. The same doctor Shri C. S. Bhati pet formed the autopsy of the dead body of Mst. Taro and found on opening the dead body comminuted depressed fractures of the right and left parietal bones under injuries Nos. 2 and 3. He also noticed dura and pia-arachonoid
