ROHITASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, dated-June 8,1979, where by the accused appellant was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200.00. In default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. It was further observed that the accused has been in custody since July 15, 1977 and as such, was entitled to a set off under section 428, Crimial P.C. 1973.

(2.) Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has only challenged the conviction of the accused appellant under section 302 I.P.C. His contention is that there was a dispute regarding the agricultural holding and that the accused-appellant was a young men of 23 years on the date of the commission of the offence the accused appellant was employed in the Army and had come on the same day on leave from Army Headquarters at Baleshwar, Chandipur. It was further contended that even according to the prosecution evidence, the accused appellant was in Military uniform at the time of the commission of the offence. It was, therefore, contended that all that happened was at the spur of the moment, and that there was no occasion for any premeditation. It was also contended that deceased Ram Sahai was an old person of 60 years, when according to the medical evidence the bones has become brittle. It was also contended that the weapon of offence used is alleged to be a lathi and that, there was, according to the medical report, a fracture of the parietal bone, but there was no damage to the brain, and that the brain matter was not coming out. It was also contended that apart from this injury other injuries were on the non-vital part of the body. It was also contended that according to the medical report injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 4 could be caused by a fall on a hard substance like stone. It was also contended that the accused-appellant acted on the spur of the moment and did not act in a cruel manner; and as such, the case can at best fall under Part II of Sec. 304 I.P.C. and does not fall within the ambit of 302 I.P.C. with any stretch of imagination.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed these contentions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Their contention is that according to the medical report, deceased Ram Sahai received as many as 10 injuries and that the accused appellant should have known that he was causing these injuries with a lathi on an old man of 60 years whose bones had become brittle. It was also contended that it cannot be said that the assault on Ram Sahi was not premeditated. Under these circumstances, they have contended that the learned trial court was justified in convicting the accused-appellant under section 302 I.P.C.