ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC, having been sentenced to life imprisonment and having been imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and further having been directed to undergo a sentence of five months' rigorous imprisonment in default thereof, by judgment dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, the appellant, Anil Kumar, has knocked at the doors of this Court.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 23.07.2010, the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction received a telephonic call from the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh Town that Shyamlal has been brought to the hospital in an injured condition. Consequently, Lekhram (P.W.10) was deputed to the Hospital in order to record the statement of Shyamlal. At about 7:50 PM, Shyamlal's statement (Ex.P.7) was recorded. In his statement, he claimed that on 22.07.2010 after doing their day's labour, around 8:00 PM, he and his friend, Anil Kumar, came back to their homes. Instead of going to their respective homes. they decided to have some liquor at a Rehari (a temporary shop constructed for the market day). While consuming liquor, both got into an oral argument, which culminated into a fight. As soon as Shyamlal came down from Rehari, Anil kicked him on his stomach and ran away. Shyamlal came back to his house. In the morning, his stomach pain increased. Therefore, he took some medicines at home. Since his condition was not improving, on 23.07.2010, his mother hospitalized him in the Government Hospital at Hanumangarh Junction. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No.476/2010, was chalked out for offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC. During the course of investigation, as his condition continued to deteriorate, Shyamlal was referred to P.B.M., Hospital, at Bikaner. After he was operated upon, he expired on 25.07.2010. Therefore, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehmently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, since Shyamlal's statement (Ex.P.7) was recorded while he was hospitalized, he may not be able to reveal each and every detail of the incident. Secondly, the testimonies of Krishan Kumar (P.W.1) and Smt. Devki (P.W.2) are corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, the veracity of their testimonies cannot be doubted. Thirdly, according to Shyamlal's statement (Ex.P.7) and according to the testimonies of Krishan Kumar (P.W.1) and Smt. Devki (P.W.2), it is the appellant who had started the confrontation with Shyamlal. Therefore, he is the aggressor. Moreover, the appellant had run away after kicking Shyamlal. Thus, it is obvious that he knew the nature of his act. Fourthly, considering the fact that he had kicked Shyamlal on the stomach, a vital part of the body, his "intention to kill" and "knowledge" that by such kicking on the stomach, in all probability, he is going to cause Shyamlal's death is writ large. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the appellant had both the "intention" as well as the "knowledge" to cause the death of Shyamlal. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment.