Back
1989 Supreme(HP) 92
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
BHAWANI SINGH
BHAGAT RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 37 of 1983
Decided On : 06/27/1989
S.S. Kanwar, for Appellant; M.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General, for Respondent.
The court held that the appellant's act lacked the degree of criminality which imputes him knowledge as to the consequences of Section 304-II of the IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 304-II IPC - FACT OF THE CASE, FINDING OF THE COURT, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE - CATEGORY AND SUB-CATEGORY
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of the deceased by inflicting a lathi blow on his head. The appellant claimed that he acted in self-defense as the deceased and his companions were armed with daratis and sangas and had attacked him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not correctly depicted the genesis of the crime and that the incident was preceded by altercations between the parties. The court also found that the appellant's act lacked the degree of criminality which imputes him knowledge as to the consequences of Section 304-II of the IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was guilty of causing the death of the deceased under Section 304-II of the IPC. 2. Whether the appellant acted in self-defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not guilty of causing the death of the deceased under Section 304-II of the IPC as there was no evidence of any intention on his part to cause death or cause such injuries of which he could have the knowledge that they were likely to cause death. The court also held that the appellant's act was not thoroughly without any justification as the deceased had closed the village path and had a darati in his possession.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and convicted the appellant under Section 325 of the IPC for causing grievous hurt to the deceased. The court also released the appellant on probation with a direction to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
This appeal arises out of the judgement of Sessions Judge, Kangra Division, in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1982 and Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1982, decided on 13-5-1983. The appellant has been convicted under S.304-II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The fine, on recovery, was ordered to be paid, as compensation, to the heirs of Jai Karan.
2. The facts, in brief, may be stated thus. According to the prosecution, on 19-2-1982, Ranjit Singh and Roshan Lal were working at the instance of Jai Karan (deceased) and were fencing his land towards the village path at about 10 a.m. The appellant, carrying a lathi, appeared and gave lathi blows on the head of Ranjit Singh and thereafter he gave lathi blows on the head, legs and right arm of Jai Karan. The blow resulted in the fracture of the ulna of Jai Karan. The appellant left the spot and Jai Karan was removed to hospital by Ranjit Singh and Roshan Lal. The statement of Jai karan was recorded by the police in the hospital under S.154 of the Criminal P.C. on 20-2-1982 and it was on this statement that a case under S.325 of the I.P.C. was registered and on the death of Jai Karan on 21-2-1982, the case was changed into S.302 of the I.P.C.
3. Subsequently, at the stage of the consideration of the charge, the appellant was charged under S.304 of the I.P.C. as initially the head injury on the person of Jai Karan was declared simple and the age of the deceased being 79 years and as no intention was attributable to the appellant that he wanted to kill Jai Karan. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The case of the appellant appears to be that the deceased was closing the pathway to the village by placing thorny bushes thereby obstructing the same unjustifiably. Further, that Ranjit Singh was inimical towards him on account of land dispute and passage started through his land which he had stopped. Further, he states in this examination under S.313 of the Criminal P.C. that lathi (Ex. P. 2) belongs to Ranjit Singh, a dhimber by caste, who uses the same to carry water as it has gaps at ends to carry iron hooks on which water buckets are fixed. He pleads innocence and false implication.
5. In order to examine this matter, it is necessary to refer to the statements of prosecution witnesses. Dr. Jatinder Kumar (P.W. 1) examined the deceased on 19-2-1982. On medical examination, the following injuries were found : "1. Lacerated wound on the middle of right arm on the medial aspect 2" X ½". Margin is red. Bone coming out of the wound. Abnormal movement of the arm (compound fracture).
2. Two lacerated wounds on the top of head. Scalp deep, reddish margins. The dimensions of the wound are about ¼" X ½". One in the midline and other 1" lateral to the first.
3. Lacerated wound on the upper end of the anterior aspect or shin ½" X ¼". Reddish in colour. X-ray of the right arm was advised. Fracture both bones revealed. 2 Fractures of Ulna, one in the middle and the other lower end. Fracture radius lower 1/3rd." The doctor found injury No. 1 to be grievous and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 of simple nature but all caused by blunt weapon. He informed the police on 20-2-1982 (Ex. P. A). Medical certificate (Ex. PB) was issued by him. He examined Ranjit Singh also on 20-2-1982 and found two injuries of the following description : "Small abrasions on the medical and superior aspect of left shoulder. Redilish blue in colour.
2. Small haemathorna on the anterior lateral (left) aspect. No other injury seen." The injuries were found to be of simple nature caused by blunt weapon and the probable duration was more than 24 hours. Medical Certificate (Ex. PC) has been issued in this connection. He certified, at the request of the police, that the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement and the same was recorded by the police. Injuries of
