MADHO SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a jail appeal filed from jail by appellant against his conviction for an offence under section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. On 10.8.1995 at about 18.30 p.m. first information report was lodged by Shyama S/o Bhura (PW 2). It is stated in FIR that he was informed at 4 O'clock in the evening by Hakim Rajput that appellant Mandha Khangar has assaulted deceased Daya Ram with lathi. Daya Ram is lying unconscious. On learning the information from Hakim Rajput, he went to field along with others and found that Daya Ram was lying unconscious on the field. Lungi and Umbrella of Mandha Khangar were lying there. However, in the evidence this witness has deposed that he had seen the incident. The trial Court has not believed this witness. However, in the FTR the reason for fight was that the bulls of deceased had entered the agricultural field of appellant and they were grazing the field of appellant. Thus from the FIR, it appears that the incident took place all of a sudden.

(2.) PW 1 Dr. G.P. Bhargava has conducted the post -mortem of the deceased and he found following six injuries on the body of deceased.

(3.) PW 8 Ranveer is another eye -witness, who has deposed that appellant had given 2 -3 lathi blows to Daya Ram. PW 9 Raghunath has deposed that Mangha has admitted before him that he had assaulted Daya Ram. Mandha has not admitted before Raghunath that he has killed Daya Ram or he has assaulted him with intention to cause death. From perusal of FIR itself, it is clear that the incident took place all of a sudden and on the heat of passion, the appellant had assaulted the deceased with lathi. Since the lathi blows were given on the vital part of the body, therefore, it can safely be inferred that appellant had knowledge that injury may cause death, but not assaulted the deceased with an intention to cause death. Even otherwise bare reading of FIR, it is clear that incident took place all of a sudden when the bulls of deceased had grazed the field of appellant. The appellant has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. His conviction under section 302 IPC is set aside and appellant is convicted for an offence under section 304 (Part -I), IPC.