NIRMAL PURSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances which have given rise to this appeal briefly are that one Hridaya Nath Yagyanik along with his wife, brother, son and daughters had gone to a betel shop on the Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur at about 8.30 p.m. on May 16, 1974 for taking betels. The appellant Nirmal Purshottam along with one Chander Chaudhary is alleged to have arrived at the shop at that time and both of them started teasing the daughters of Shri Yagyanik and passed indecent remarks. Thereupon Shri Yagyanik asked the appellant and his companion not to do so on which these two persons started abusing and quarrelling with Shri Yagyanik. Some by-stendars intervened and Shri Yagyanik with other members of his family returned towards his house after taking betels. But as soon as they reached near the Golcha Cinema House (as it was then popularly known) the appellant and his companion approached them in an auto-rickshaw and alighting therefrom the appellant caught hold of Shri Yagyanik and told him that he would teach him a lesson. The members of the family of Shri Yagyanik tried to intervenes, but the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed Shri yagyanik in the abdomen, causing a wound in his abdomen, as a result of which Shri Yagyanik became unconscious and started bleeding profusely. He was immediately removed to the hospital where he was operated upon and he had to remain as an indoor patient in the hospital for a period of about 4 months. A first information report about the aforesaid occurrence was lodged on May 16, 1974 itself at about 10 p.m. by Smt. Archana, daughter of the injured Shri Yagyanik, in which she narrated the entire incident and stated that from the talks that took place between the appellant and his companion she came to know that the names of the two assailants were Nirmal Purshottam and Chander Chaudhary. The appellant and his companion Chander Chaudhary were later on arrested by the police, who after usual investigation, presented a charge-sheet against both of them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City for committing offences under Sections 307 and 324 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code respectively. The learned Magistrate committed the appellant and Chander Chaudhary to stand their trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City and while a charge under Sec. 307 Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant, a charge under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code was framed against Chander Chaudhary by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, who after a trial convicted the appellant under Sec. 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo two and half years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. However, Chander Chaudhary was acquitted of the charge under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code The appellant, Nirmal Purshottam has filed the present appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated May 31, 1975 convicting him under Sec. 307 Indian Penal Code, as mentioned above.

(2.) The testimony of Kumari Vandana PW 1, Smt. Nirmala Yagyanik PW 2, Surendra Jain PW 3, Kamal Kishore PW 6, Smt. Archana PW 7 and Hridayanath Yagyanik PW 8 is unanimous on the point that the appellant along with his companion came to the betal shop of Ram Singh situated at Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur and started teasing the girls when the family of Shri Hridayanath Yagyanik was taking betels from the aforesaid shop and when Shri Yagyanik objected they started abusing him. These witnesses have also stated that both the appellant and his companion were drunk and they hurled abuses and when thejfamily of Shri Yagyanik moved towards their residence after taking betels, the appellant and his companion again approached them in an auto-rickshaw near the Golcha Cinema House. The auto-rickshaw was then parked there and the appellant and his companion came towards Shri Yagyanik and the appellant started beating him and when other persons tried to intervene, the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and thrust the same in the abdomen of Shri Yagyanik. Thus there is no manner of doubt that the appellant was responsible for giving a knife blow to Shri Yagyanik in the abdomen. PW 4 Dr. R.P. Gupta, who was then Medical Jurist at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and who had examined the injuries on the person of Shri Yagyanik, has stated that there was a stab wound 4# cm x 3 cm in the epigastrium region of the abdomen, 2 cm above umbilicus, which extended horizentaliy from the mid line to left side. He also stated that margins were clear cut and were inverted and fresh blood was coming out through the wound and loops of intestines were visible. According to Dr. Gupta the general condition of the patient was poor and he was in a shocked state and that the injury was fresh and appeared to have been caused by a sharp weapon and in his opinion the same was dangerous to life and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has also testified about the fact that he operated upon Shri Yagyanik and found five perforations in the jejunum and one tear in sigmoid colon. From the testimony of PW 4 Dr. Gupta it appears that the injury caused on account of the knife blow inflicted by the appellant in the abdomen of Shri Yagyanik was dangerous to life and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, if he would not have been immediately removed to the hospital for treatment and surgical operation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from -the evidence on record it does not appear that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of Shri Yagyanik. That may be so, but the very fact that the appellant, who had earlier quarrelled with Shri Yagyanik at the betel shop, followed him in an auto-rickshaw and finding him on the way took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed with the same in the abdomen of Shri Yagyanik and thereby caused an injury which was dangerous to life, it must be held that the appellant must have knowledge that his act was so eminently dangerous that it could in all probability cause death of Shri Yagyanik. It is entirely different matter that on account of timely medical aid and prolonged treatment the life of Shri Yagyanik was saved. In that view of the matter it cannot be held that the appellant was not guilty of an offence punishable under Sec. 307 I. P. C.