SUNDER RAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECEASED Gambhir Sai was having some old land dispute with appellants Sunder Ram and SamaylaI. On 16.9.1984 Gambhir Sai had gone to the jungle alongwith Gulab (P.W. 1) and Kishun (P.W. 2). When this party returned from the jungle at about 5.00 p.m. and reached Tendu Bandh situate near village Umeshpur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Surajpur, Gambhir Sai was attacked by the appellant who were armed with axes. Gilmbhir Sai received nine injuries on various part" of the body one of which was on the temple and had caused depressed fracture leading to shock and haemorrhage. It was this injury alone which was responsible for his death after about twenty hours in the hospital. After the assault he was in senses and reached the police station to lodge first information report Ex. P. 20. Crime under section 307 read with 34 IPC was registered which was later converted into offence under section 302 in alternative 302/34 IPC. The deceased was first examined by Dr. A.B. Chipre (P.W. 7) who found nine injuries as per Ex. P. 8. His post mortem was conducted by Dr. H.N. Trisodi (P.W. 10) who vide report Ex. P. 16 found one injury on the temple region, another on the occipital region which was bone deep, two incised wounds on the left leg which had not resulted in any severe damage to arteries, another similar incised wound on left hip and four simple injuries on various parts of the body. In his opinion death was the result of haemorrhage and shock resulting from injury No.1 on temple region. The offence was then converted under section 302 IPC. The appellants were arrested by the police and the weapons of offence were recovered from them vide Exs. P. 3 and P.4. The matter went to trial. The first information report was treated as dying declaration. The same was fully coroborated by two eye witnesses Gulab and Kishun. In result, the appellants were convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 27.4.1987 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1/85 of Surguja Sessions Division which is under challenge in Cr.A. No. 899188 presented by Sunderram and Cr.A. No. 900/88 filed by Samaylal being jointly disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the truth of the incident. His submission is that though both the appellants were armed with sharp edged axes and inflicted a number of injuries on the victim the injuries so inflicted with the sharp edge of the axe were on non -vital parts of the body and did not contribute materially in causing the death of Gambhir Sai. The solitary fatal injury found on the temple region was caused by the blunt side of the axe. Had the assailants the intention to kill the victim they could have certainly inflicted blows with the sharp edge of the weapon on vital parts of the body. Therefore, considering the property dispute between them and the deceased and the nature and location of injuries the trial Court was in error to have concluded that the assailants intended to commit the murder of Gambhir Sai. In the facts and circumstances of the case all that can be said with certainty is that the appellants had the knowledge that bodily injuries being inflicted by them were likely to cause death. Reliance was placed on Afrahim Sheikh and others v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1964 SC 1263). We see no reason not to agree with this submission.