DAMODAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th May, '80, passed by the Sessions Judge. Sikar, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant u/s. 307, IPC and sentenced him to 4 years' rigorous impri- sonment and a fine, of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) ON 10th July, '79, at about 8. 45 AM, a written report was lodged by one Nagarmal Soni, stating therein that on that morning at about 7 o'clock, while his brother Dwarka Prasad was sitting at the shop, situated at their house, accused Damodar prasad, his father Nanda, his mother, sister, aunt and his 'bhabhi' came there. Damodar was armed with a sword, while the others were carrying lathis with them. Immediately after their arrival, Damodar and his father Nanda uttered that Dwarka prasad be done away with that day so that there would no dispute in future. Damodar then attacked Dwarka prasad by inflicting sword-injury on his head. Dwarka prasad cried and raised his left hand in defence. Damodar then inflicted another sword-blow on the head of Dwarka, but, it hit him on the palm of his left hand. All the other persons who had accompanied Damodar, were standing there surrounding his brother, and they prompted Damodar to kill Dwarka prasad. After inflicting the blows Damodar and others fled away. ON receipt of this information, a case u/ss. 307, 147, 148 & 14 , IPC, was registered. After completing usual investigation the police submitted a challan against the accused-appellant only u/ss. 307 & 326, IPC.

(3.) IT was also argued by Mr. Biri Singh that as is clear from the statement of the doctor, PW 1 Dr. Nathmal Saboo, that a case u/s. 307, IPC, however, is not made out. The statement of the doctor, was read over to me & I also perused the said statement. According to the Doctor Dwarkaprasad had 3 injuries-injury No. I was an incised wound on the head, and in his opinion, this injury was simple in nature and not a dangerous or grievous one. Injury No. 2 was also an incised wound on finger and thumb. And Injury No. 3 was an incised wound on the right forearm. According to the doctor, Injury No. 3 was grievous in nature. Injuries Nos. 1 & 2 were simple, as there was no fracture, but Injury No. 3 was a grievous one, as there was a fracture of ulna-bone The doctor has stated that injuries Nos. 2 & 3 were bleeding profusely, and in his opinion, profuse bleeding might have been dangerous to the life of the patient. In his cross-examination, he has very specifically said that injuries Nos. 2 & 3 were dangerous to life. On the. face of this statement, it is clear that the doctor was not of definite opinion that Injuries Nos. 2 & 3 were dangerous to life.