GUDDU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Bharat Yadav, appearing for the appellant has stated at The bar that the appellant has undergone ten years, four months and seventeen days. The learned counsel has submitted that since he will be only confining his arguments regarding conversion of the offence and sentence to be awarded in case offence is converted, we have taken up this appeal for hearing.

(2.) APPELLANT Guddu @ Anwar @ Kanna Son of Asraf was tried by the Court of Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota for offence under Section 302 IPC. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant on 20th April, 2000 at 9.00 P.M., in Shama Colony near cremation ground, caused two injuries with incised weapon in the thigh of Om Prakash, the deceased. Thus, he committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant for having committed offence punishable for more than ten years, under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, was also charged for the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 23rd August, 2005, acquitted the appellant so far as the charge under Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned. However, the Court below found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. By a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default thereof, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

(3.) WE shall deal with medical evidence in the later portion of the judgment. Suffice it to say, in the present case, death has taken place due to cutting of femoral artery. In case where injuries are caused on the thigh and result into cutting of femoral artery or on clevical and result into cutting of superior vencava, what will be the offence? question raised is not new to the Courts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Delhi Administration : AIR 1968 Supreme Court 867, Laxman Kalu Nikalje Vs. The State of Maharashtra : air 1968 Supreme Court 1390 and Gokul Parashram Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1441 has come to the conclusion that offence will fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. A similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Raju @ Jasvinder Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (2) R.C.C. 899.