ABDUL WAHID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABDUL-Wahid appellant, aged about 42 years, a clerk in Lower Ganges Canal Division, Mainpuri, has been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 L P. C. to undergo R. I. for three years for having caused a knife injury at the abdomen of Mewa Ram, Barkandaz (P.W. 1) in Ram Ganga Canal Division, Mainpuri on 13-3-1975 at about 2.30 P. M. in his own office. Mewa Ram had advanced a sum of Rs. 100/- as loan to ABDUL Wahid appellant at the time of Diwali festival about six months before the occurrence. The appellant did not return his money despite various demands. At least on the date and time of occurrence Mewa Ram went to the appellant in his office and made a demand of his money. The appellant felt offended because Mewa Ram made demand in his office. Therefore he stood up and began to grapple with Mewa Ram. In the course of gappling the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and caused injury at the abdomen of Mewa Ram. Krishna Dutt Tripathi (P. W. 2), a clerk in the office of the appellant snatched the knife (Ex. 5) from the hands of the appellant and handed it over to Jogendra Nath Dixit, Head Clerk (P.W. 4). The injured was taken by Ganesh Shanker, Clerk, in the motor car of the Executive Engineer to District Hospital, Mainpuri where Dr. N. D. Bhargava (P. W. 6) examined him. Mewa Ram got a report written by Ganesh Shanker and sent it to police station, Mainpuri. This report was lodged by Ganesh Shanker at the police station at 4 P.M. Sri S. N. Gautam (P. W. 5) investigation into the case. The appellant did not admit to have assaulted Mewa Ram as alleged. The prosecution examined Mewa Ram, Krishna Dutt Tripathi and J. N. Dixit in support of its version. Dr. N. D. Bhargava found following injury on the person of Mewa Ram : (1) Punctured (penetrating) wound 1.8 cm. X 0. 7 abdominal cavity deep over the abdomen left side, 8 cm. awary from the umblicus at about 3 O'clock position, directed from above to downwards any slightly inwards. The margins of the wound were sharp and clean cut. The depth of wound was directed from above downwards and slightly inwards and backwards. A small piece of omen-turn was protruding from the wound. The wound was bleeding. The II Additional Sessions Judge, believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellant under Section 307 I. P. C. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record examined. The appellant's counsel firstly urged that the appellant was not guilty of the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. and that he was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. It shall be noticed that the actual assault followed grappling between ABDUL Wahid and Mewa Ram. Mewa Ram had come to make demand in the office of ABDUL Wahid, who obviously felt offended. In the course of grappling ABDUL Wahid took out a knife from his pocket. Therefore, it appears that the knife was a small one. According to Dr. N. D. Bhargava the injury was simple and not grievous. Dr. Bhargawa clearly stated that if the injury had been a little more deep it could have proved fatal. The injury, as it stood, was simple and not fatal or dangerous to life. Taking into consideration the circumstances in which the injury was caused by the appellant, it cannot be held that the appellant caused injury with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder. To bring the case within the ambit of Section 307, the prosecution should make out facts and circumstances as envisaged by Section 300 I. P. C. In the instant case, the ingredients of Section 300 are wholly lacking. In fact the ingredients of Section 307, as stated therein, are wanting. Therefore, it has been rightly contended that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 307 and could only be convicted under Section 324 I. P. C. In cases under Section 307 I. P. C. the courts below should carefully consider the porvisions of Sections 324, 326 and 307 I. P. C. They should also consider the circumstances in which the injury has been caused. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that fine only be imposed upon the appellant. The II Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on 24-10-1975. He was allowed to be released on bail by this Court on 6-11-1975. In this way the appellant has remained in jail for about a fortnight. Ends of justice will meet if the appellant is made to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Appeal is allowed in part in this way that the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside but the appellant is convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he will undergo R. I. for nine months. The appellant is given three months time from this day to deposit the fine in the court below. Out of the fine paid by the appellant a sum of Rs. 300/- will be paid to Mewa Ram (P. W. I) as compensation.