MOHAMMAD SALAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Mohammad Salam challenges his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life inflicted thereunder.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 8-11-1983 at about 11. 15 pm., deceased Kallu Lal Jain, a Cloth Merchant of Jabalpur, went along with his brother Mulayamchand Jain (P.W.-9) to the house of one Islam for dunning for credit money of Rs. 35/-, being the unpaid price of cloth due from Islam. Two brothers of Islam named Jannu and Salam (appellant herein) were found standing at the door of the house. When the deceased asked them about whereabouts of Islam, appellant Salam replied that he was sleeping inside the house. The deceased insisted upon Islam being woken up because he urgently wanted money from Islam. At that stage Islam showed himself up and stood behind appellant Salam. While the conversation was going on, appellant Salam got down from the doorstill, of his house and reaching up to the place where the deceased was standing on the road, plunged a dagger into the abdomen of the deceased. After inflicting that injury, the appellant took to his heels. The deceased was found to have sustained an incised wound 1"x 1/2" cavity deep on the right side of the chest at the lower part of the sternum; vide injury report Ex. P-25. Deceased Kallu Lal succumbed to his injury on 16-11-1983 in Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. The cause of death was peritonitis due to injury; vide post-mortem report Ex. P-15.

(3.) The prosecution case depended for its proof on the evidence of eye-witnness Mulayamchand Jain (P.W.-9), dying declaration of the deceased (Ex. P- 19) recorded on 9-11-1983 by Naib Tahsildar Shri Hara (P.W. 12) and recovery of a dagger on the information and at the instance of the appellant, which was found to be blood-stained; vide the report of F.S.L., Sagar Ex. P-23. The said evidence satisfactorily proved the prosecution case. It is true that death of the deceased had resulted not directly from the injury sustained by him but from peritonitis, which was the supervening cause. Where the supervening cause is the direct result of the injury, the person inflicting the injury is as much liable for causing death even though the death was not the direct result of the injury. The case of Salebhai Kadarali v. Emperor, AIR 1949 Nagpur 19: (1948 (49) Cri LJ 647), is in point. It was a case of abdominal stab wound which was viscera deep. The death had taken place due to gangrene and paralysis of the intestines resulting from the abdominal wound. It was held that the supervening cause of death being the result of the wound, the offender was responsible for causing the death.