AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the order dated 13. 1. 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and to further undergo a sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 17. 3. 2000 the injured, Radhey Shyam, had given a Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1) to the police wherein he had stated that in the evening around 8. 00 P. M. Balchand and Vikaram son of Shri Bherulal and he were going towards the Bazar from his house. As soon as they reached near the house of Salagram Gurjar, Vikaram and Sardar son of Salagram Gurjar and Amar Singh came from behind and assaulted them. While Kripal hit over the head, Amar Singh hit Balchand's head with a "lakadi" (piece of wood), Sardar Singh hit Vikaram over the head and on the eyes with a "lakadi". When they shouted, Kripal's wife came out of her house with a "lathi" and hit him over the left shoulder with the said "lathi". Because of the hue and cry raised by them, Bhagatram, Gayarshiram, Peeru Darji and Karan Singh rushed to their rescue and saved him. He further claimed that they were assaulted because of an animosity had developed after breaking of some electricity wires. On the basis of the said Parcha Bayan, the police chalked out a former FIR (FIR No. 52/2000) for offences under Section 323 & 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, with the death of Balchand, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Consequently, the police filed a charge sheet against Amar Singh, Kripal Singh and Sardar Singh for offences under Section 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(3.) ALTHOUGH Radhey Shyam (P. W. 1) has claimed in his testimony that the appellant was armed with a "dhariya", the other witnesses Vikaram Singh (P. W. 2), Bhagatram (P. W. 15) and Bherulal (P. W. 17) all claimed that the appellant was armed with a "lathi". Even during the course of investigation, a "lathi" was recovered from the appellant. According to the injury report of Balchand, he has sustained a head injury by blunt weapon. According to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P 30) brain hemorrhage was caused because of the single injury received by the deceased. In fact, the deceased had died only because of cranial hemorrhage caused by the injury. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the testimony of the witnesses, who have stated that the appellant was carrying a "lathi". ALTHOUGH the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the head injury was caused by the appellant, it is still a case of single injury caused by the appellant. The appellant has not repeated the blow on the head. Therefore, his intention to cause death is not apparent. However, as a vital part was stuck with a Lathi, the appellant certainly can be attributed with the knowledge that he is likely to cause death by such an action. Hence, the case does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-II IPC.