BHAGOTA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk dated h 20, 1976 by which he convicted the appellant under Sec. 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The prosecution story as deposed to by PW 1 is that on the day of occurrence i.e. March 3, 1976 Nand Lal, the deceased had come to the village. The appellant asked Nand Lal to pay the money for the chillis, which the accused is said to have sold to him. Nand Lal is said to have refused to pay and said that the father of the accused owed Rs. 200.00 to him. The accused stated that he was not the surety for that and that the money owed by deceased should be paid to him. On this the deceased is said to have given abuses of sister and mother to the accused and also grappled with him, on which the accused took up a Kudali which was lying there and gave one blow on the head of the deceased. The deceased was removed to the hospital and the doctor found (i) a lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x ⅛" on the left parietal region and (ii) contusion 1" x 1/2" on the left parietal region below injuries could be the result of one blow and by blunt weapon. PW 2 and PW 3 are the eye witnesses, who support the prosecution version. The accused when examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. gave a written statement in which he stated that he had asked the deceased to pay him for the chillis which be had sold to him and that when the deceased gave him abuses of mother and sister, he was very much enraged and that he asked the deceased not to do so and when the deceased jumped towards him to catch his throat, he hit him with the Kudali.

(3.) It is thus apparent that the broad story is being accepted by the appellant. The justification for his having hit the deceased with the Kudali is stated to be and this was the point which was urged by Mr. Chatterjee counsel for the appellant, that the deceased had caught hold of the throat of the appellant and was pressing it and as the appellant felt in danger of life, he was justified in the right of self defence of person to give a blow even to cause the death of the deceased. This argument, however, pre-supposes that action of the deceased was such which would cause reasonable apprehension to the accused that his life was in danger. Now PW 2 and PW 3 have no doubt stated that the deceased gave abuses of mother and sister and though they also say that Nand Lal deceased inched towards the accused, there is no evidence to support the defence stand that the deceased had caught hold of the neck of accused and was throttling him. Even from the broad angle this version is inaccepteble. It is quite obvious that what has happened is that on the refusal of the deceased to pay the money and the accused insisting on it there was giving of bad abuses by the deceased. It is quite likely that on these abuses and possibly feeling the lack of justification for it the accused lost his temper and in the heat of the moment picked up the Kudali and gave one blow. The blow was given by the blunt side and it is no body's case that he tried to repeat the blow. The whole thing was a sudden one and, therefore, rightly the trial Court refused to convict him under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and found him guilty under Sec. 304 Part II I.P.C. I find no illegality in the judgment of the Sessions Judge and would uphold the same.