GURDEV SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the brother of one Pritam Singh. Gurnam Singh deceased who was a milk vendor went to the house of Pritam Singh at about 6 A.M. on 17th September, 1980 to get milk. The appellant demanded Rs. 10/ - from him on account of the price of the milk previously supplied to him. The deceased is said to have told him that he would pay that amount on the next day. The appellant, however, insisted that he would recover the amount there and then. Soon after he lifted the deceased and threw him head wise on the ground. Thereafter he sat on his chest. Bachan Singh P.W. 2 and Bur Singh P.W. 3 raised an alarm "na maro, na maro". Upon this, the appellant ran away from there. The aforementioned two persons carried the deceased to his house and lodged him there. Thereafter, they went to Shangara Singh Sarpanch and narrated this matter to him. As a result of the head injury the deceased had been rendered unconscious. The father of the deceased, i.e. Bachan Singh P.W. 2, made some efforts to get a private Doctor but he was not available. The deceased was then taken to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. He was examined at 11.30 P.M. on the same day i.e. on September 17, 1980, by Dr. S.K. Gupta, P.W. 1 who found no external injury on his person. The deceased breathed his last at 9.00 P.M. on September 19, 1980 The appellant was sent up for trial on these facts.

(2.) THE prosecution relied upon the ocular version given by Bachan Singh P.W. 2 and Bur Singh P.W. 3. Both of them deposed to the facts mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Their evidence was accepted by the learned trial Judge who convicted the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years. He has come up in appeal before us. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellant could not have been convicted under section 302 I.P.C. Admittedly, the deceased owed some money to the appellant and some altercation might have ensued between both of them on account of the demand of the money. The appellant is said to have held him in his grip and felled him on the ground. In that process the head of the deceased struck against the ground, but even then there was no external mark of any injury. Dr. S.K. Gupta, who conducted the postmortem examination on 20th September, 1980 on the dead -body of the deceased however, stated as under : - -

(3.) ON the basis of the aforementioned statement made by the Doctor, it is obvious that the deceased died as a result of the haematoma sustained by him on account of the fall. At best it can be said that the appellant had the knowledge that when he threw the deceased head -wise on the ground, the injury sustained by the latter could be fatal. In this situation, we convert the conviction of the appellant from one under section 302, I.P.C. to one under section 304, Part IT, I.P.C. and order that he should undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. The entire amount of fine, if realized, shall be paid to the next of kin of the deceased. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.