IN THE HIQH SQVRT_QS_3VBI<2A-J;ySB AT_ JABALPtIR.CM.P. ) Cr.Appeal No. 7^'S/1999 !i lu- APPBXiLANT [In Jail) Versus RESpONDENT: Oajjoa son o£ Sona.v., aged about 40 Tyears, res.i.dent of village PaGborl, P.S.Saragaoii, Distt. ' ^<f Janjgir, M.P. The State o£ M.P / SKa CRIMINAL APPBAL HNDER SECTION 374, GRIHINAL PROaEBORE aoDE lilMUll XI-HC-78 ^±^ 3ST '<<l<llcl<(, ®Tfl«'IS,IsKlltfy t^ 4x.a..^?i.^3| l^^w-—-'^ *<l*lWl sh*lltt» 3ii^)i|><aw (1^3^^) an^r^iTf^riq; tIWSTI^Tshtli'h 5^iTWBf?cfan^T °hiq?CI*n-< >11HMTifte(^<.l«l«l< ^arf^iTsn^r DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO. AG. IC.J.& HON'BLE IVIR. SUNIL KUMAR SINrtA. J. 12.1-2007 Smt. Usha Chandrakar, cour<sei Shri Ashish Shukla, Aditiitional State/respondent. Oral judgment dictated on Da| L.C. BHADOO. Aa. CJ. for the appellant. Pubtic Prosecutor for the s. 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 Imonths. The case ofthe prosecution, p.m. when Budhwara Bai along with) itailoring shop of Shyamial (PW-1), Gajju Sarathi came on the scene, hairs, dragged her and stabbed her| 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 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 |n brief, is that on 22-1-98 in between 3-4 |her daughter Ram Kali were standing at at that time, all of a sudden, accused le caught hold of Budhwara Bai by her |on the stomach with a knife, as a result 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 *im^l Sfr*TTcb ^si ^{{•iiw-if^ w^w\e, Kwwy. .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' iffs^ff <Rl<-<;!< ^aTf^TSTI^T |started oozingout ofthe injurywet pudhwara Bai died instantaneously. The Inatter was reported by Shyamlal |under merg intimation Ex.-P/4, baseijl on that F.1.R. (Ex.-P/l) was registered. fThe i.0. left for scene of occurrei|ice, he prepared site plan Ex.-P/2, he |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 |stained soil and piain soil was sei^ed under Ex.-P/7. Knife, weapon of offence, and Lungi were seized frorr| 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 labrasions were found on her body n the Court of Judicia! IVIagistrate, 1 Sessions Judge, Janjgir received the ;PW-1) in the Police Station Saragaon the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/S. under Ex.-P/10. The body of Budhwara Dr. V.K. Agrawal prepared the injury 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 Class, Janjgir, who In turn, committed |the case to the Sessions Juctge, pilaspur, from where leamed Additional case on trarrsfer for trial. 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 *11*IWt ShH 3ST '<ll<<lcl'i|, yxfly'is, (sjcliuy ^...C>...A..^/.^^ 341^1 4d* (li?ltd<!ISiiT) sn^r^Tf^ra; TOT3I1^TsbKI»b ?¥aTSKHf?(T3i^r him in the prosecution evidence, respective parties and perusal of; «hl'i|?fl41-<Nl^t-il'fffWl'f.Rl+AK. ^sTl^R'an^r stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. Learned Additional Sessiijins Judge after hearing counsel for the record, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. 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^ spot, as also medical evidence of that he conducted postmortem on| arayan, who reached immediately on the Dr. V.K. Agrawal (PW-10), who has stated the body of Budhwara Bai, on account of stab wound Budhwara Bai died. Th|e death was homicidal in nature, the injury 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 *11*I^IT Sh*< 'SSf ^liqirtl, ®T(1y'l6,(s|dlt1^< rra? ••••'•••••••••••'•••/•/»/gq- 200 3ii^i 4si<»> (y!g°<<^ff) 3n^r^T^i»b OTTSn^rgiiTTq; STHTWUfBcT.W^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 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 these witnesses. To this extent, w^ of the trial Court is based on legal| accused assaulted the deceased <M'iiIti41-i iii<iTffte^'<Ri«i< ^srf^iTan^T abte to elicit any circumstance which s this Court to disbelieve the evidence of are ofthe considered opinion thatfmding 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 only once that too from the back side. 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 ^ +11*1WI Sh*1ich 3:5T '<1WMil, »Tn<H'16, RlCllt-iy Sy.^.:.l^?.fi^ 200 Sll^l Mach ('iciI^':«^&T) sn^r^iTRHicb ci51T3n^Tsti*li<ti SRITW BfgcT STI^T Shyamlal has stated in his were standing at his shop, he was t Budhvrara Bai, at that ti.ne, all of scene of occurrence, firstly, he her and stabbed with a knife, as Budhwara Bai feil down. Simiiar is 3 Samarin Bai. evideni|;e that Budhwara Bai and her daughter ^king measurement for stitching blouse of ^ sudden, the accused appeared on the cai^ght Budhwara Bai by her hairs, dragged ih result of which lot of blood came out. llhe evidence of P.W-2 Ram Kali and PW- !n this connection, evidencl conducted postmortem, is aiso w/ound in the size of 4.5 cm in injury was 15 cm below the scapu| blood was oozing out ofthe injury, ir| muscles were cut and left lung cause of death was due to injury or| and shock. Injury was sufficient irj death. ascerttiin Sing!e injury cannot aiways| conclusion vvfiether the accused his death or not. tn order to required to evaluate prosecution look into the manner in which circumstances couoled with nature was inflicted, force with which injur^ leading to the assauit are some »bl<lFl-1<fl-< t||t|(-irfr')W)'<Fa1<<;K ^isrf^Tsn^T 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, |a & it was 5 cm left from dorsa! spine, ir|jury was 9 cm deep in the chest, internal wa^ damaged. He has further stated that the vital organ, excessive haemorrhage the -ordinary course of nature to cause be a sole ground for reaching to the as^aulted the victim with intention to cause intention ofthe accused, the Court is e|/idence before arriving at a conclusion, offence was committed i.e. surrounding |3fweapon, part ofthe bodywhere injury ^as infticted and the background facts ofthe factors to be considered, as has been P.T.O. 'O'l'd XI-HC-78 /^ ,^ *ii*i^ti arm^i 3^'qTORTq', ®Tn<H'16,Rjdiyy .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 Yacfav Casds held by the Apex Court in the'matt^r reported in 2005 Gri. L.J. 684. In the matter of Darshan 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 Doctor found seiious injuiies in the\ that the injury siiffered by the wcfjm ordmary coursa of nature - On su( made out." and others V. State of U.P. reported 592 the Apex Court held that "Singte 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 offence injf/ry Coutt 1& circumstinces In the matter ofJaiprakash y in (1991) 2 SCC 32 the Apex inflicted by the appellant. In para-' the accused intentionally inflicte<p premeditated one. All the of mind that he aimed and inflicted absence of svidence or reasonabt^ did not intend to stab in the sufficient to penetrate the heart, it not intend to inflict that injury 'intention' is established, the offenc^ is found to be sufficient in the Therefore, an offence of murder p tii<](i-i''n-) tiwciTiffst^'<R]<-(;K ^3l1^R'3T^Rr of Thangaiya V. State of Tamil Nadu V. State (Delhi Administration) reported held that "this case is of single injury I, the Apex Court held that 'in this case, the injury though it may not be would clearly indicate such a state [that injury with a deadly weapon. In the explanation to show that the appellant e|st with knife wtti that degree of force \4/ould be perverse to conctude that he did he did. When once the ingredient would be murder as the 'intended' injury course of nature to cause death. nhade out." chelst thfo or^inaiy "^;. 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 premeditation, in a sudden fight, intention to cause death has to be present case, which has been men «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 jn '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 ioned above, the background ofthe case is that on the complaint of Budhvjara Bai the accused \was convicted in a 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 for stitching of her blouse to Shyai hold of her by her hairs, dragged h' was caused with such force that il 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) quarrel, the accused, in a heat o|f once. Therefore, facts of the sa( 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 Sdf- ActingChiefJustice fnlal, all of a sudden, the accused caught ^r and stabbed with knife, that singie blow penetrated about 9 em inside the body, I, there was sudden quarrel, in that passion, picked up axe and assaultect |d case cited by leamed counsel for the 4>nsidered opinion that there is no illegality |trial Court. The appeal being devoid of |t is hereby dismissed. Sd/- SuniiKumar Sinha Judge ; P.T.O. Eifl