ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

The appellant came to be convicted by Sessions Court, Surat for the offence of murder of one Ganesh Sonwane, allegedly committed by him on July 20, 1997 at about 0445 hours in Zenith Mill, Surat by pouring boiling hot water over the deceased causing him burns. The Sessions Court, while rendering judgment in Sessions Case No.110 of 1998 dated 27th November, 1998, sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for 30 days. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the original accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant and Ganesh Vanabha Sonwane were working in Zenith Mill. They had some quarrel in the early morning hours of 20th July, 1997, while they were working together. They were separated by co-workers and thereafter, Ganesh was sleeping by the boiler. Around 4.45 a.m., it is alleged that the accused – appellant poured steaming hot boiling water over the deceased, as a result of which he suffered 30-40 degree superficial burns. He was taken to E.S.I. hospital where he was appropriately treated. While he was under treatment at the E.S.I. hospital, he expired on 3rd August, 1997. During this period, the police was informed and police recorded an F.I.R. from the deceased himself. Offence was registered and investigated and ultimately, chargesheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C., Surat. J.M.F.C., Surat, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No.110 of

1998 came to be registered.

2.1 Charge was framed against the accused – appellant at Exh.3 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 326 and 302 of I.P.C. to which the accused – appellant pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that offence of murder was proved against the appellant and recorded his conviction therefor. The Trial Court also concluded that offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 was not duly proved and, therefore, recorded an acquittal.

3. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the appellant so also learned APP Mr. Rawal. We have been taken through the record and proceedings by both the sides in support of their respective submissions.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution indicates that the appellant poured hot water on person of the deceased with the help of a jug. The injuries suffered by the deceased were only superficial covering 35-40% of the body. Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the medical evidence does not indicate that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It has also come in medical evidence that the injuries could not have ordinarily caused death but for subsequent complications. Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the deceased died of Septicaemia on the 14th day after the incident and, therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder. Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution, taken at best, would only suggest that the appellant poured hot water on person of the deceased and the deceased suffered 35-40% superficial burns but later on died because of Septicaemia. Pouring of hot water can never be considered as an act committed with an intention to cause death of a person nor can it be considered as an act so dangerous that it would ordinarily cause death of a person. Mr. Mangukiya, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously recorded conviction for the offence of murder. At the most, Section 323 or Section 324 of I.P.C. would be attracted. Mr. Mangukiya does not seriously challenge the finding on involvement of the appellant in the incident.

5. Learned APP has opposed this appeal. According to him, the conviction is we