GANI MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Gani Mohammad has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur under sec. 302, I. P. C. for causing the murder of Abdul Rashid, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 8-3-65 while deceased Abdul Rashid was offering prayer in a mosque in Dungarpada at about 5 P. M. , the accused stabbed him with a knife in the right side of his abdomen. Abdul Rashid cried out in agony and ran away from the spot. He crossed over the roof and tin-shed of the shops attached to the mosque and jumped down in the Bazar. THE accused, however, followed him and attempted to give a second blow to the deceased Abdul Rashid, who was however rescued by P. W. 4 Hiralal Nai. This incident was witnessed by P. W. 2 Hamid Beg, P. W. 3 Nathulal, P. W. 4 Hiralal, P. W. 6 Habib Beg, P. W. 7 Ramjilal and P. W. 15 Manohar Lal. A first information report of the occurrence was immediately lodged at the Police Station, Toda Bhim, which is at a distance of about a furlong from the place of occurrence and the Station House Officer, Bahadur Singh (P. W. 16) came to the spot and made necessary investigation. THE accused was found in his house and was arrested and a blood stained knife was recovered from the pocket of his trousers which he was wearing at that time. THE trousers had also blood stains and therefore the same was taken possession of by the Police. Since the deceased was in a serious condition, his dying declaration Ex. P. 1 was also recorded by the Station House Officer himself and the same has been placed on the record and marked Ex. P. 1. Some marks of blood were also found on the carpet spread out in the mosque where the people had offered 'namaz' and consequently the Station House Officer took the cuttings of the portions of the blood stained carpet in his possession. THE injured Abdul Rashid while he was being taken in a bus to Jaipur breathed his last on the way and his body was therefore taken back to Todabhim. P. W. 10 Dr. Kanhyalal performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Abdul Rashid on 9-3-1965. Thus after completing the investigation the Police challanged the accused in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Hindaun for offence under S. 302 I. P. C. and was in due course committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur to stand trial under sec. 302, I. P. C.

(3.) WE are also of the opinion that in any case the accused intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor, as already mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, has clearly stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and, therefore the case is also covered by the clause thirdly to sec. 300, I. P. G. Looked at from any point of view there is no escape from the conclusion that the act of the accused clearly falls under sec. 300, Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that if efficient medical treatment had been given immediately, the deceased may have survived, and in support of this contention he has invited our attention to that part of the statement of Dr. Kanhyalal where he has stated that "in the absence of efficient medical treatment the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The statement is not very happily worded. Probable what the doctor meant was that even though the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death yet the victim could have survived if he had efficient medical treatment in time. In our opinion the submission of the learned counsel is not correct. If the probability of death is very great the requirements of clause thirdly are satisfied and the fact that a particular individual may by the fortunate accident of his having secured specially skilled treatment, or being in possession of a particular strong constitution have survived an injury which would prove fatal to the majority of persons subjected to it, is not enough to prove that such an injury is not sufficient "in the ordinary course of nature" to cause death. If a person knowingly causes injuries which are more likely to cause death than not in the ordinary way, his offence falls under either the second or third clause, of sec. 300, Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, in our opinion this part of the statement of the doctor would not in any way lessen the gravity of the crime but as we have already stated above, apart from the applicability of the third clause of sec. 300, I. P. C, the case of the accused falls under the main para of sec. 300, I. P. C. , as in our opinion the act by which the death was caused in the ordinary course was done with the intention of causing the death.