VBI<2 v. SKa

Smt. Usha Chandrakar, cour<sei for the appellant. Shri Ashish Shukla, Aditiitional Pubtic Prosecutor State/respondent. Oral judgment dictated on Da| s. L.C. BHADOO. Aa. CJ. This appeal is directed agains) |sentence dated 4th May 1999 pasl IJanjgir in S.T. No.201/98 whereby [holding the accused/appellant guilty 1302 ofthe I.P.C., sentenced him to |fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default ofpaym|i the judgment of conviction and order of ;ed by the Additional Sessions Judge, learned Additional Sessions Judge after for commission of offence under Section iundergo imprisonment for life & to pay a |ent offine to further undergo R.l. fortwo Imonths. The case ofthe prosecution, |n brief, is that on 22-1-98 in between 3-4 p.m. when Budhwara Bai along with) itailoring shop of Shyamial (PW-1), Gajju Sarathi came on the scene, |her daughter Ram Kali were standing at at that time, all of a sudden, accused le caught hold of Budhwara Bai by her hairs, dragged her and stabbed her| |on the stomach with a knife, as a result of which she fell down on the grounc) Budhwara Bai snatched knife from <1 ran away. Devnarayan (PW-4) also the accused but the aecused ran In the meantime, Ram Kali daughterof Ihe'hands ofthe accused. The accused |appeared on the scene, he tried to catch aviay. As a result of stab injury, blood P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^si ^{{•iiw-if^ w^w\e, Kwwy. *im^l Sfr*TTcb .Cy.A.: W 200 Sii^i yaw (lci(^'s'S,ff) 3I7^T?irR-fi<ti (iqTSn^Tstitilcb gRTTWHlNan^T ^ »bl<ll<-l41-f WtRTF' if fs^ff <Rl <-<;!< ^aTf^TSTI^T |started oozingout ofthe injurywet pudhwara Bai died instantaneously. The Inatter was reported by Shyamlal ;PW-1) in the Police Station Saragaon |under merg intimation Ex.-P/4, baseijl on that F.1.R. (Ex.-P/l) was registered. for scene of occurrei|ice, he prepared site plan Ex.-P/2, he fThe i.0. |seized 4 blouse under Ex.-P/3, aft^r giving notice Ex.-P/5 to the Panchas, |nquest report Ex.-P/6 was preparetf on the body of Budhwara Bai. Blood Knife, weapon of |stained soil and piain soil was sei^ed under Ex.-P/7. offence, and Lungi were seized frorr| the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/S. under Ex.-P/10. The body of Budhwara ICIothes of the accused were seizedl |Bai was sent for postmortem exarfiination to the Primary Health Centre, |Champa under Ex.-P/13 where Ipr. V.K. Agrawal (PW-10) conducted Ipostmortem on the body of the deij;eased and opined that cause of death was shock due to excessive haemc|rrhage as a result of injury to the vital organ (!eft lung). Ram Kali (PW-2) vfas also examined by the doctor and two Dr. V.K. Agrawal prepared the injury labrasions were found on her body report Ex.-P/15. The injuries on the fiody of Gajju was also examined on 23- 1-98, two incised wounds and 3 abra|sions were found on his body. After usual investigation, cha^ge sheet was filed against the accused n the Court of Judicia! IVIagistrate, 1 Class, Janjgir, who In turn, committed |the case to the Sessions Juctge, pilaspur, Sessions Judge, Janjgir received the case on trarrsfer for trial. from where leamed Additional Prosecution in order to est^biish the charge against the accused examined 11 witnesses. Statemertt of the accused was recorded under ISection 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in which l|ie denied the material appearing against P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3ST '<ll<<lcl'i|, yxfly'is, (sjcliuy *11*IWt ShH ^...C>...A..^/.^^ 341^1 4d* (li?ltd<!ISiiT) sn^r^Tf^ra; TOT3I1^TsbKI»b ?¥aTSKHf?(T3i^r him in the prosecution evidence, falsely implicated in the crime. «hl'i|?fl41-< Nl^t-il'fffWl'f.Rl+AK. ^sTl^R'an^r stated that he is innocent and has been Learned Additional Sessiijins Judge after hearing counsel respective parties and perusal of; accused as aforementioned. the record, convicted and sentenced the We have heard learned couitisel for the parties. At the outset, learned coijinse] for the accused/appellant has not disputed homicidal death of Budhvfara Bai. Apart from that, from the oeular evidence of PW-1 Shyamlal, at deceased with knife, P.W-2 Ram [whose shop the accused assaulted the |Kali, daughter of the deceased, who was present on the scene of occurr^nce, PW-3 Samarin Bai, who was also present on the spot & PW-4 Devr^ arayan, who reached immediately on the spot, as also medical evidence of that he conducted postmortem on| stab wound Budhwara Bai died. Th|e death was homicidal in nature, the injury Dr. V.K. Agrawal (PW-10), who has stated the body of Budhwara Bai, on account of was sufficient in the ordinary cour^e of nature to cause death, his report is Ex.-P/17, from the above ocular ahd medical evidence, it is established that death ofthe deceased was homicidlal in nature. As far as involvement of th4 accused/appellant in crime in question is concerned, PW-1 Shyamlal, at wh|ose shop Budhwara Bai and her daughter Ram Kali were standing, has state|d that the accused came and attacked the deceased with knife on the storrlgcft, as a result of which blood started If oozing out of the injury, the dece|ased feil down and died instantaneously. The above evidence of Shyam al has been corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of P.^t/-2 Ram Kali, daughter of the deceased, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 'SSf ^liqirtl, ®T(1y'l6,(s|dlt1^< *11*I^IT Sh*< rra? ••••'•••••••••••'•••/•/»/gq-200 3ii^i 4si<»> (y!g°<<^ff) 3n^r^T^i»b OTTSn^rgiiTTq; STHTWUfBcT.W^T <M'iiIti41-i iii<iTffte^'<Ri«i< ^srf^iTan^T who vras present on the scene of c|ccurrence, as also the evidenee of PW-3 Samarin Bai and PW-4 Devnaray^n. In cross-examination of these four witnesses, defence has not 'beerl abte to elicit any circumstance which makes the evidence of these |witnesses untrustworthy or unreliabie. Shyamlal, Samarin Bai and D^vnarayan are independent witnesses, therefore, there is no reason befoi|i s this Court to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. To this extent, w^ are ofthe considered opinion thatfmding of the trial Court is based on legal| evidence and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial Court t4 arrive at a decision that the accused was author ofthe crime in question. Learned counsel for the aijicused/appellant placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the ttiatter of Bagdi Ram V. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2003 AIR ^CW, 6692 argued that in this case the accused assaulted the deceased too from the back side. only once that There was no intention of the accitsed to cause death of the deceased, as such offence against the accused <(oes not travel beyond Section 304 Part-11 ofthel.P.C.. On the other hand, learnecj counsel for the State/respondent while supporting the judgment of the trial] Court argued that single injury cannot be taken a ground that the accused hiad no intention to cause death. Other surrounding circumstances i.e. wejapon of offence, place where injury was inflicted, force used and the mann^r in which crime was committed are to be considered for ascertaining intentioifi of the accused. in order to appreciate argum|ents advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, we have perus|bd evidence available on record. PW-1 P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:5T '<1WMil, »Tn<H'16, RlCllt-iy +11*1WI Sh*1ich Sy.^.:.l^?.fi^ 200 ^ Sll^l Mach ('iciI^':«^&T) sn^r^iTRHicb ci51T3n^Tsti*li<ti SRITW BfgcT STI^T »bl<lFl-1<fl-< t||t|(-irfr')W)'<Fa1<<;K ^isrf^Tsn^T Shyamlal has stated in his evideni|;e that Budhwara Bai and her daughter were standing at his shop, he was t Budhvrara Bai, at that ti.ne, all of scene of occurrence, firstly, he ^king measurement for stitching blouse of ^ sudden, the accused appeared on the cai^ght Budhwara Bai by her hairs, dragged her and stabbed with a knife, as ih result of which lot of blood came out. Budhwara Bai feil down. Simiiar is llhe evidence of P.W-2 Ram Kali and PW- 3 Samarin Bai. !n this connection, evidencl conducted postmortem, is aiso w/ound in the size of 4.5 cm in lenc|e of Dr. V.K. Agrawai (PW-10), who relel/ant, who has stated that there was cut leng|th & 0.1 cm in width in horizontal shape, injury was 15 cm below the scapu| blood was oozing out ofthe injury, ir| |a & it was 5 cm left from dorsa! spine, ir|jury was 9 cm deep in the chest, internal muscles were cut and left wa^ damaged. He has further stated that cause of death was due to injury or| and shock. Injury was sufficient irj the vital organ, excessive haemorrhage the -ordinary course of nature to cause death. Sing!e injury cannot aiways| conclusion vvfiether the accused be a sole ground for reaching to the as^aulted the victim with intention to cause his death or not. tn order to ascerttiin intention ofthe accused, the Court is required to evaluate prosecution look into the manner in which e|/idence before arriving at a conclusion, offence was committed i.e. surrounding circumstances couoled with nature was inflicted, force with which injur^ leading to the assauit are some |3fweapon, part ofthe bodywhere injury ^as infticted and the background facts ofthe factors to be considered, as has been 'O'l'd P.T.O. IIJIKI!—';.;^, XI-HC-78 ,^ /^ 3^'qTORTq', ®Tn<H'16,Rjdiyy *ii*i^ti arm^i .C.V4..7€ ?.-?/%•/•t/W! 200 3ii^<>i 4a«n(ytl^si<^r) •sn^rqirR-fist) cCT'3TI^Tsbt]l°h s^irwtrf^crsn^r tii<](i-i''n-) tiwciTiffst^'<R]<-(;K ^3l1^R'3T^Rr held by the Apex Court in the'matt^r of Thangaiya V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2005 Gri. L.J. 684. In the matter of Darshan Yacfav Casds in (2005) 10 Supreme Court injury - Questton as to natwe of.i was ss/cf to have been infticted anc| under S.302 - Accused inftkted Jnji/ry injf/ry Doctor found seiious injuiies in the\ that the injury siiffered by the wcfjm ordmary coursa of nature - On su( and others V. State of U.P. reported "Singte 592 the Apex Court held that offence Submission that oniy one injury the same coukl not give rise to offence by ballam, a sharp-cutting weapon - abdomen of the deceased - He opined was suffscsent to cause death in ihe Iph facts, held, case under S.302 cfeariy made out." In the matter ofJaiprakash y Coutt in (1991) 2 SCC 32 the Apex inflicted by the appellant. V. State (Delhi Administration) reported held that "this case is of single injury I, the Apex Court held that this case, 'in 1& In para-' the accused intentionally inflicte<p the injury though it may not be premeditated one. All the of mind that he aimed and inflicted circumstinces would clearly indicate such a state [that injury with a deadly weapon. In the absence of svidence or reasonabt^ explanation to show that the appellant did not intend to stab in the chelst e|st with knife wtti that degree of force sufficient to penetrate the heart, it 'intention' \4/ould be perverse to conctude that he did he did. When once the ingredient is established, the offenc^ would be murder as the intend to inflict 'intended' injury injury is found to be sufficient in the or^inaiy course of nature to cause death. Therefore, an offence of murder p nhade out." "^;. P.T.O. 'O-l-d XI-HC-78 3^'::wn?pr, (STfly'iri, Rirtiuy HIH^I Sblich ^.•.h:l^.^ 200 aii^s'iMa'*) (i^^tyT) aTi^T^rf^ra; ll^lshHi<* ?;Riiw:^f?(r3ncRT Therefore, while reaching to' was assaulted with intention to in a sudden fight, premeditation, intention to cause death has to be «bi<<r<~i<fl-i *i]>«-iT^'fs<^)'<Ri<rt;i< ^srf^TTStl^T |the conclusion as to whether single blow t:ause death or it was caused without 'a heat of passion and \wthout having decided based on the facts of each case. in the light of above princi^le, if we look into the evidence of the present case, which has been men is that on the complaint of Budhvjara Bai the accused \was convicted in a ioned above, the background ofthe case criminal case, he was sent to jail afid after his release, on the fateful day, he came prepared with knife, without ^ny kind of quarrel or aitercation between the deceased and the accused, wh^n the deeeased was giving measurement fnlal, all of a sudden, the accused caught for stitching of her blouse to Shyai hold of her by her hairs, dragged h' was caused with such force that il ^r and stabbed with knife, that singie blow penetrated about 9 em inside the body, damaged the tung, vessels were al^o damaged & cut, therefore, these facts are suggestive that the accused ^ssaulted the deceased with intention to cause death. In Bagdi Ram's case (Su()ra) I, there was sudden quarrel, in that the accused, quarrel, once. Therefore, in a heat o|f facts of the sa( passion, picked up axe and assaultect |d case cited by leamed counsel for the aecused/appellant are distinguishafc]le. in the result, we are ofthe or infirmity in the judgment of the| merit, is iiable to be dismissed and 4>nsidered opinion that there is no illegality |trial Court. The appeal being devoid of |t is hereby dismissed. Sdf- ActingChiefJustice Sd/- SuniiKumar Sinha Judge ; P.T.O. Eifl