The judgment establishes that for a conviction under IPC 307, it is essential to prove the accused's intent to cause death, which may be deduced from the nature of the injuries and other circumstances.

A.N.Jindal, J.

1. Satnam Singh accused-appellant (herein referred as the accused) has preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 01.04.2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, convicting and sentencing him as under :-

Under Section Sentence 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- 324 and 498-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.

2 The complainant Surjit Kaur (herein referred as the complainant) lodged the case against the accused (her own husband) on the allegations that she was working as a lady health visitor and was married to the accused about sixteen years prior to the occurrence. From the marriage, a daughter namely Preet Sandhu was born. They were residing together at Kothi No. 74/2, Garden Colony, Jalandhar. She has levelled allegations that after ten years of the marriage, the accused had started compelling her to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- from her parents in lieu of the plot which she had inherited from her father by way of will . He also compelled her to part with all the golden ornaments which were lying in the locker and transfer her share in the house, half of which was in his name. He was also accusing her for not giving birth to a male child.

3. On 01.03.1997 at about 11:00 a.m., when the complainant was doing her household work, the accused came there and exhorted that she would be killed and after grabbing her entire property, he would contract the second marriage. He inflicted an iron rod blow on her fore-head and a knife blow on the right side of her chest, consequently, bleeding started from the wounds. Thereafter, he gave kick blows on her left shoulder, left wrist, back and other parts of the body. Resultantly, she fell down on the ground. Tulsi Ram and Sukhwinder Singh came at her rescue. Raj Mohan Singh, brother of the complainant, had also arrived at the spot, who took her to civil hospital. The aforesaid statement, recorded by the police Ex.PD on 02.03.1997 by Sub Inspector Bhupinder Singh was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ex. PD/2 was recorded. The accused was arrested. On completion of investigation, he was challaned.

4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 498-A IPC, he was charged to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Ajay Sahni (PW-1), complainant Surjit Kaur (PW-2), Sukhwinder Singh (PW-3), Dalip Singh, Draftsman (PW-4), Dr. Jaswant Singh Bath (PW-5) and Sub Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-6).

6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, he further pleaded that he was arrested on 01.03.1997 in the morning. The injuries were fabricated by Surjit Kaur in order to put pressure upon him to lease the house. However, no evidence was led in defence.

7. The trial resulted into conviction.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the judgment, has urged that no such incident took place whereas the complainant, being working lady in Health Department, in connivance with the doctors of the hospital, succeeded in getting a false medical report against the accused. Even according to the doctor, Injury No. 3 is not covered by Section 307 IPC. The matrimonial dispute was given the shape of a criminal case in order to put pressure upon him so that he may part with one-half share in the house and the remaining half share is already in her name and she is residing in the said portion. There was no chance of his re-marriage after such a long lapse of time. He has further urged that there is a long unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Though the complainant may be in some unconscious state then Sukhwinder Singh, who is alleged to be present at t