CHANDAN Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by one Chandan for enhancement of sentence of Babu who has been convicted under Section 304, Part II, I. P. C., and sentenced to the maximum sentence of ten years' R. I. which could be passed under that Part of the section. The facts briefly stated are as follows :

(2.) The opposite party Babu and Ram Dayal deceased lived as tenants in the same house at Deorhi Begam. On 19-7-1950 at 6-30 p. m. there was a quarrel between Smt. Harpiari, wife of the opposite party Babu, and Smt. Bhauti, wife of the deceased Ram Dayal. The opposite party Babu intervened and scolded Smt. Bhauti. Ram Dayal reprimanded the opposite party Babu and said that he should not interfere in a quarrel between ladies. On this Babu became furious and threatened to kill some one and in furtherance of his intention ran to his room, brought out a knife, rushed at Ram Dayal and inflicted several blows on him, hitting him in the back, neck, arms and chest. Ram Dayal collapsed and died at the spot because of the serious injury to the left lung and cutting of the blood vessels of the neck and the arm. The opposite party was prosecuted under Section 302, I. P. C. The Incident was amply proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the case fell within Exceptions 1 and 4 of Section 300, I. P. C. He, therefore, acquitted Babu of the offence of murder under Section 302, I. P. C. and convicted him under Section 304, Part II. He expressed the opinion in the course of his judgment that Babu neither intended to kill the deceased nor intended to inflict such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.

(3.) The view of law taken by the learned Sessions Judge is undoubtedly incorrect. On the facts proved in the case, the offence fell under Section 302 I. P. C. and Exceptions 1 and 4 of Section 300 I. P. C. did not apply. It was established by the evidence on the record that Babu declared that he would kill some one, that he brought out a knife from his room, that he attacked the deceased with that knife causing injuries on the neck, chest and other parts of the body and that the injuries on the neck and the chest proved fatal. When a person causes injuries with a sharp-edged weapon, or a fire-arm, on vital organs of the body, the inference is irresistible that his intention was to cause death. When he causes these injuries with a lathi, the inference may still be that the accused intended to cause the death of the deceased. But sometimes in the case of few lathi blows causing the death of the deceased, that inference may not be drawn. In the present case, as the injuries were caused on vital organs of the body by a sharp-edged weapon, the inference was irresistible that the accused Intended to kill the deceased. This was reinforced by the prosecution evidence that the opposite party Babu had declared before he made the attack on the deceased that he would kill some one.