GHAPOO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal appeal, the appellant Ghappoo has challenged his conviction under section 302, Penal Code, for murder of one Munnalal, for which he has been sentenced to life imprisonment as well as under section 325, Penal Code, for causing injury to Bhagchand (P.W. 1), by the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 89/84.

(2.) The incident occurred on 27.6.1984, at 8.00 a.m., regarding the dispute of land when the appellant is said to have given Parena belows to Pannalal as a result of which he died on the spot. It is not necessary for us to give all the details of the incident as the short question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Dr. Dixit (P.W. 9) who performed the autopsy over the dead body of Pannalal, did not state that the injuries found on the person of deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In our opinion, the argument is well founded, as according to para-3 of section 300 of the Penal Code, a person can be held guilty for murder only if the prosecution has established that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted to thevictim is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the present case, admittedly, the doctor did not state that the injuries found on the person of the deceased Pannalal were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Even otherwise, the injuries are said to have been by parena and the circumstances in which the incident occurred, it cannot be inferred that the appellant had intended to commit murder of his victim. We are, therefore, of the view that the offence committed by the appellant falls within the purview of section 304; Part-lI, Penal Code. We, therefore, hold him guilty accordingly.

(3.) In result, the appeal partly succeeds and is hereby allowed. AppellantTs conviction under section 325, Penal Code, with the sentence thereunder, is upheld, but his conviction under section 302 with sentence thereunder is set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted under section 304, Part II, Penal Code. The appellant is in Jail since June, 1984. He has thus suffered more than seven years sentence which, in our opinion, is sufficient sentence. We thus confined him with the sentence already undergone by him. The appellant be released, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal partly allowed.