DUNGA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (camp at Didwana), on 11th Dec. 1981 in Sessions Case No. 47/81, State v. Dunga Ram, whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under-go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be summarised as below :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code because, even if the prosecution story is totally believed, the act of the accused does not amount to culpable homicide amounting to murder and the appellant can be held guilty only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. To support the above contention the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that accordingly to prosecution story only one blow was inflicted on the head of Pusa Ram by the appellant with a lathi and when Pusa Ram was medically examined by the Medical Jurist only one simple injury caused by blunt weapon was found on his head as evidenced by Medico Legal Report Ex. P-10. The injury has been described in Ex. P10 :- Lacerated wound left side of parietal region with swelling extending upto eye lid (left) 31/2" x 1/2"skin deep Simple Blunt In column No. 7 of Ex. P-10 the Medical Jurist advised examination of the injury. Shri Om Prakash PW-10 is the Medical Jurist in his statement he has deposed that on X-Ray examination the injury found on the head of Pusa Ram was not found to be grevious. Relying upon the above circumstance the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the injury inflicted by the appellant on the head of deceased Pusa Ram was a simple injury caused with a blunt weapon viz. a lathi and the liability of the appellant for this injury is confined to Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and does not go beyond that Section. Regarding the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case there is nothing to prove that the appellant intended to cause death or intended to cause an injury which he knew was likely to cause death, or he intended to cause an injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death or the appellant committed an act which was so dangerous to human life that in all probability it must have caused death and therefore, the act of the appellant does not fall Within the definition of culpable homicide amounting to murder as given in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out because the simple injury, which the appellant had inflicted on the head of the deceased, was not likely to cause death and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot be said to have any knowledge that by his act of inflicting injury on the head of the deceased, he might cause his death. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that assuming the prosecution story to be totally reliable the offence under Sections 302 or 304 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and, therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.