MANA GENDAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants in this case were committed to the Sessions Court of Kaira on a charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the allegation being that they caused the death of one Dula Galab by inflicting injuries on his head and elsewhere in such circumstances that the offence constituted culpable he micide not amounting to murder. The Sessions Judge altered the charge to one of murder under Section 302, but convicted the accused of the offence of grievous hurt and sentenced Nos. 1 and 2 to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, an d No. 3, who had used a knife, to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326.

(2.) The appeals have been admitted by this Court as regards the sentences only; but before dealing with the question of sentences, we think it desirable to make some preliminary remarks as to the propriety of the finding that the offence amounted to grievous hurt and nothing more. It appears that there is a growing tendency among Sessions Judges to convict of the offence of grievous hurt in cases of offences against the person which have resulted fatally. The description of grievous hurt contemplated is practically never stated. In the great majority of cases, it could only be that mentioned in the 8 Clause of Section 320, viz., "any hurt which endangers life". That was so, for instance, in the case of Emperor V/s. Khoda Samta Criminal Application No. 198 of 1830 decided by Mirza and Broomfield, JJ., on June 11,1930 (Unreported). A person who voluntarily inflicts injury such as to endanger life must always, except in the most extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, be taken to know that he is likely to cause death. If the victim is actually killed the conviction, in such cases ought ordinarily to be of the offence of culpable, he micide. In that connection I may refer to Emperor V/s. Bui Jiba 42 Ind. Cas. 754 : 19 Bom. L.R. 823 : 18 Cr.L.J. 1010. The case before us now is a, case of fracture of the bones of the skull. The evidence of the Doctor who held the post mortem on the deceased shows that there were contusions one on the right side of the forehead and one on the left side of the scalp; and on dissection beneath these contusions it was found that the frontal and both the parietal bones were fractured into several pieces, and the skull cap was depressed at various places pressing the substance of the brain. There was also an incised wound on the forehead, but the Doctor's opinion was that death was due to the fracture of the skull bones and the consequent injuries to the brain.

(3.) Now, if we consider the provisions of Section 322 of the Indian Penal Code, which (gives the definition of the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, it is clear that the conviction of the accused of the offence of grievous hurt when analysed implies a finding that they intended or knew themselves to be likely to smash their victim's skull. But if that is found, he w can one stop short of finding that they knew that they were likely to cause the death of the victim? In our opinion the offence established by the evidence in this case in respect of the injuries inflicted by accused NOS. 1 and 2 is culpable he micide not amounting to murder, and these accused should have been convicted of that offence.