LAWS(GAU)-1952-2-3

STATE Vs. BABAR ALI

Decided On February 26, 1952
STATE Appellant
V/S
BABAR ALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills District in the case of 'The State v. Babar Ali', under Rule 16 of the rules framed for the administration of justice in the Garo Hills for confirmation of the sentence of 7 years' R.I. passed upon Babar Ali under Section 304, I.P.C.Mr. Sarma appears for Babar Ali.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that on 17.2.51 at about 2 or 2 -30 p.m. Babar Ali was annoyed with his wife, Mariam Bibi, for delay in cooking his food; he beat her with a bamboo 'lathi' and caused two injuries on her back. There were no eye -witnesses to the occurrence. Bogo the younger sister of Babar Ali, arrived shortly afterwards; she saw Mariam Bibi sitting in an uncomfortable posture; Mariam Bibi asked for a drink of water, which Bogo gave her; shortly after drinking water she became restless and unconscious. Bogo massaged her chest and poured water on her head but Mariam did not revive and died shortly afterwards. A report of the occurrence was in due course made to the Police, and on completion of the investigation. Babar Ali was sent up for trial under Section 304, I. P. C. The first question which Mr. Sarma has raised for the appellant is that the learned Deputy Commissioner has misapplied Section 304, I.P.C. to the facts of this case. He has referred to the medical evidence which shows that there were only 2 abrasions on the back of the deceased one abrasion 3" x 1" on the left side of the back of the body, and another abrasion 1"x 1/2" on the left side of the back of the body. His contention is that as the deceased died as a result of the rupture of the spleen, brought about by the injuries caused on her back, a rupture which would not have taken place if the spleen had not been weak & enlarged -Section 304, I.P.C. has no application. Section 304, I.P.C., is in these terms:

(3.) MR . Sarma contends that as the act of Babar Ali consisted in inflicting 2 injuries with a bamboo stick on the back of the deceased's body, it cannot be said that the injuries, being mere abrasions, were caused with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.