Sahib Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - sections 302 & 304, part-ii--accused meeting deceased by chance--no premeditation--two blows given--abdomen injury proved fatal--death after 3 days of incident--no intention to cause death but knowledge to cause injury likely to result into death--held, accused can be convicted under section 304, part-h and not under section 302.;appeal partly allowed - shyam sunder byas, j.1. the appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned additional sessions judge (i), hanumangarh dated july 28, 1981 convicting the appellant under section 302, i.p.c. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased prithvi singh was going to village hadhai. he met the accused there. the accused was indebted to him for rs. 550/-. the deceased asked the accused to make the payment of the money. thereupon the accused took out a knife and plunged it to the deceased. as a result, the deceased fell down. he was removed to the hospital. a report of the occurrence was lodged by the deceased in the mid-night on the same day.i.e., 7-7-1980, at the police station, sangariya. the police registered a case under section 307, i.p.c. and proceeded with investigation. the deceased was removed to the hospital where, despite medical treatment, he passed away on july 10, 1980. the police added section 302, i.p.c. during investigation, the accused was arrested. before the deceased breathed his last, his dying declaration ex p. 27 was recorded by a judicial magistrate. on the information furnished by the accused, the knife was recovered. on the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, sangariya, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial in the court of sessions. the learned additional sessions judge framed a charge under section 302, i.p.c. against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. according to him, he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. in support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and filed some documents. in defence, the accused adduced no evidence. on the conclusion of the trial, the learned additional sessions judge held the charge duly brought home to the accused. the accused was consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very out-set. aggrieved against his conviction, the accused has taken this appeal.3. we have heard mr. doongar singh learned counsel for the appellant and mr. s.k. mathur the learned public prosecutor for the state. we have also gone through the case file carefully.4. keeping in view the two dying declarations one in the shape of the first information report and the other ex. p. 57 recorded by the judicial magistrate mr. doongar singh learned counsel appearing for the appellant, did not challenge the incident. the only submission made by him pertains to the offence made out against the accused. it was argued by him that it was per chance that the accused met the deceased. there was no pre-meditation nor an intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the victim. it was further submitted that the learned additional sessions judge crept into an error in arriving at the conclusion that the offence made out is that under section 302, i.p.c. it was argued that the case does not travel beyond the second part of section 304, i.p.c.5. it was, on the other hand, contended by the learned public prosecutor that there was repetition of blows. the deceased was struck two blows. that discloses the guilty intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the victim. we have taken the respective submissions into consideration.6. we have gone through the materials on record. it was by chance that the accused met the deceased. the evidence does not disclose that there was any pre-meditation on the part of the accused to cause the victim's death. the victim was struck only two blows, one of which is very minor. the injury caused to the victims abdomen proved fatal. it may be mentioned that the incident took place on july 7, 1980 where as the victim died after three days on july 10, 1980. keeping all these circumstances into consideration, we are of the opinion that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the victim we have also gone through the testimony of dr. rajendra kumar (pw 1), who conducted the post-mortem examination. he also did not state that any of the injuries was individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. we are, therefore, of the opinion that the offence made out does not fall within the purview of section 302 i.p.c. the offence made out is that under the second part of section 304, i.p.c. the accused did an act with intention but with the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death.7. in the result, the appeal of accused sahib ram is partly allowed. his conviction and sentence under section 302, i.p.c. are set aside. instead, he is convicted under section 304, part-ii, i.p.c. and is sentenced to eight-years rigorous imprisonment. the appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of.