STATE OF HP Vs. SUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul- Spiti Districts at Mandi, dated 13.12.1996, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused on having committed an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC but has found him guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and directed that the accused be released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.

(2.) The facts as proved on record are that the deceased Roshan Lal and accused consumed liquor in the house of PW- Kunta Devi alongwith one PW- Punnu Ram. Thereafter, some altercation took place between the Roshan Lal and accused and the accused hit Roshan Lal on the right temporal region of his head and gave him fist and kick blows. Thereafter, PW-Gayaharu Ram came to the spot and separated the two. Roshan Lal was taken to his house and remained in his home till 12.3.1994. On 12.3.1994 at about 5.00 or 6.00 a.m., Roshan Lal expired. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased lodged a report with the police and on the basis of this report, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against the accused. However, he was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. After trial, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that the accused had given kick and fist blows to the deceased but it came to the conclusion that the deceased had not died as a result of the injuries and, therefore, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(3.) The statement of the Doctor, PW-1, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased is most relevant. According to him, deceased Roshan Lal died due to asphyxia (failure of respiratory system). His further observation was that the time between the injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was between 24-48 hours. In cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that the injuries, which he had seen, were ante-mortem and could be caused by kick and fist blows. He was categorical in stating that the aforesaid injuries could not cause asphyxia, which was the cause of death. In fact, in his statement, he has gone to the extent stating that none of the injuries, singly or jointly, could cause the death of the deceased. There is nothing to contradict this medical evidence of the expert. Therefore, obviously this case will not fall within the purview of Section 304 Part-II IPC.