STATE Vs. SAGAR BHAGWAN HARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, on a charge Under Section 302, Penal Code, but was convicted under Part I of Section 304, Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the learned Judge's above order.

(2.) THE facts as found by the learned Judge are ithat the respondent is alleged to have assaulted his elder brother's wife Puri and given her several blows with the flat side of a shovel causing severe Injuries to her resulting in her death. The assault took place on 18-3-53 in a field at about 10 or 11 a. m. and was the result of a dispute between the respondent and the deceased Puri over the boundary of the lands, which were respectively assigned by the respondent's father Harji to the respondent and Puri. The boundaries were demarcated by boundary stones, but the respondent had removed the stones and claimed some portion of the field which was assigned to the deceased Puri. On the morning of the offence the respondent went to his uncle Lava Jetha and requested him to come to the field and set boundary stones again. Lava came to the field at about 10 a. m. The respondent and the deceased Puri were there. Puri's minor son Bhavan, on whose behalf Puri was acting as his guardian, was also there. Lava wanted to place the boundary stones in their original position, but the respondent did not agree as he wanted more land. Lava however insisted upon fixing stones in their original places. The respondent then stated that he would call independent persons in the afternoon and get the boundary fixed by them. After an exchange of words with the respondent, Lava started to return to the village. He had hardly gone a few paces, when he heard the shouts of a shepherd Gova Vira, who was also there, that Puri was being assaulted. Thereupon he turned back and both he and the shepherd ran to the rescue of the woman. But before they reached the spot the respondent had already dealt severe blows to Puri with the flat side of his shovel and had run away taking the shovel with him. The woman had fallen down in a pool of blood and had become unconscious. She was taken to the police chowki, where she died at about noon.

(3.) THE respondent admitted the disputes with Puri. He also admitted having called the uncle to the field and that he had prevented his uncle from fixing the boundary stones but he denied having given any blow to the deceased. His case Was that there was an exchange of abuses between him and Puri, in the course of which she attempted to snatch the shovel from him, and accidentally received a blow on her head. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence and came to the conclusion that the respondent caused the death of the deceased by intentionally delivering blows to her which were likely to cause death and convicted and sentenced him as above. The respondent did not appeal against these findings nor against his conviction and sentence.