OYAMI AYATU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave by Oyami Ayatu against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, affirming on appeal and reference the conviction of the appellant under Section 303 Indian Penal Code and the sentence of death.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that the appellant was convicted on November 11, 1967 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge Durg and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant was undergoing during the days of the present occurrence the sentence of imprisonment in the Central Jail Raipur. On January 31, 1972 at about 1.50 p.m., it is stated, Durbal deceased who too was undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the Central Jail Raipur went to the urinal in the niwar-making shed of the jail. While proceeding to the urinal, Durbal's foot touched the bamboo sticks which had been spread by the accused. When Durbal sat down to urinate, the accused attacked him with a knife. Durbal then ran away from the urinal, but was chased by the accused and was given a large number of knife blows. The occurrence was witnessed by Radheylal (PW 4), Jageshwar Singh (PW 5), Nindma (PW 6), Rai (PW 9), Tilak Ram (PW 10) and Bagarsai (PW 11), besides the other prisoners working in the niwar-making shed. Alarm was raised and the jail authorities arrived at the spot. Durbal died soon after the attack. Report about the occurrence was lodged by the Suprintendent of the jail. Post-mortem examination on the body of Durbal was performed by Dr. M. L. Sharma on the following day. As many as eighteen stab wounds were found on the body of Durbal deceased. Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the vital organs like lungs, liver and spine. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

(3.) At the trial, the appellant made a clean breast of the matter and admitted that he had caused knife injuries to Durbal deceased in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. The trial court accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses as well as the plea of guilt of the accused-appellant and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. On appeal and reference, the High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.