Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vinod @ Nanna vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: RLW2004(3)RAJ1361, 2004(2)WLC84
JUDGMENT Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. This appeal stems from the judgment dated June 2, 2000 of the learned Special Sessions Judge, SC &ST (Prevention of Atroticites) Cases Ajmer rendered in Sessions Case No. 77/1997 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under Section 302 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life Under Section 307 IPC To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Co-accused Kalu @ Nirmal was however acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC.
2. On May 15, 1997 around 1.45 PM when Govind Singh (PW.3) was selling ice-candy, the appellant bought ice candy and when price of ice-candy (Rupee one), was demanded, the appellant took out knife and stabbed it on the left side of the chest of Govind Singh. In the meanwhile Govind Singh's brother Lalit Kumar (now deceased) when made attempt to save Govind Singh, the appellant inflicted knife blow on the chest of Lalit Kumar, as a result of which he fell down. Lalit Kumar while taken to the Hospital, died on the way. Injured Govind Singh was admitted to the Hospital. Dinesh Kumar Bohra, Investigating Officer, on receiving information of the incident of stabbing, reached at the J.L.N. Hospital and recorded statement of Govind Singh. On the basis of Parcha Bayan of Govind Singh (Ex.P-1) case under sections 302 and 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Injuries sustained by Govind Singh were examined, dead body of Lalit Kumar was subjected to autopsy, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant and co-accused Kalu @ Nirmal were arrested, knife allegedly used in commission of offence got recovered at the instance of the appellant and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned trial Judge. Charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as nine witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.
3. We have pondered over the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance weighed the material on record.
4. Dr. Laxmi Narain Singhaksha (PW.8) performed autopsy on the dead body of Lalit and as per post mortem report (Ex.P-8) there was Stab wound 3 x 1.5cm x ? on front of left side of chest 1.00 cms on the left nipple and 6.5 cm lateral to medial place, on the left intercostal space, place obliquely medial angle of the wound is point and acute while the lateral angle obture with thin abrasion at its, Dissection: On dissection of the abdominal cavity.
The muscles and subcutaneous lies underneath the external wound are and stained with blood. There is a cut of 4.5 x 1cms in size, oblique placed in the IV intercostal space, the intercostal muscles are cut through & through which the thorasic cavity expend. There is chip fracture (cut) of the border of the 4th rib, 2.5cms in size lateral to sterno costal juncture. There is cut in the parietal pleura in space. The left lung is collapsed & pleural cavity is filled 1.2 foul & clotted blood. There is a cut, 2 x 1 cms in size on medial free border of the left lung lob. The wound is through & through penetrating the lung tissue with big sized cut on the inner surface of it left upper lob. Visceral pleura is also cut. There is a cut 1 x 5cms in the covering of the ascending oorta, just prian to arch of oorta. The tunica of the oorta are stained with blood. There is a cut of 5 x 2cms in size on arch of oorta anterior surface near the branching of bracho caphalec trunk. The wound is perforating actric wall. The direction of the wound from its entry at left side chest wall to its termination at oorta is upward & medial and is 7.00 cms in length. The track was through and through stained with blood. Cause of death was shock due to excessive bleeding from left lung and the oorta caused by sharp weapon, freshly before death. The injury was ante mortem in nature. The injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
5. Dr. Laxmi Narain Singhaksha also examined Govind Singh (PW.3) who as per Medical Injury Report (Ex.P-6) sustained stab wound 2 x 1cm x ? on left side of chest almost vertical 7.5cms. Outward and downward to the left nipple. As per X-ray report (Ex.P-7) no bony injury was seen and it was stated that opinion about nature of injury could be expressed after reading surgeon notes. Dr. K.K. Dangayach (PW.7) was posted as Surgeon at J.L.N. Hospital, operated upon the injury and as per Surgeon Notes (Ex.P-5) there was 1/2cm (with) size, muscle deep stab wound present on 5th Lt intercostal space on ant axillary line, from which oozing was seen. This wound was clean by savlon and normal saline and stitches were applied with plain thread, interrupted in casualty and clean and dress the wound after proper hemostats. Dr. Laxmi Narain Singhaksha after examining operation notes opined that injury was simple in nature.
6. The fact that appellant gave a blow with a knife to deceased Lalit which landed on the left side of his chest and this injury resulted in death of Lalit is not open to dispute and not questioned before us. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that having regard to the genesis of the occurrence and the surrounding circumstances and the fact that one blow with a knife was given which happened to land on the chest, it cannot be said with reasonable certainty that appellant committed murder of deceased Lalit or appellant intended to cause the particular injury and the injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In such a situation the appellant can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Reliance is placed on Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1), Mochi Raju v. State of Gujrat (2), K. Ramkrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (3), and Yudhvir v. State of Haryana (4).
7. Keeping in view the submissions, it is necessary to recapitulate the genesis in which the incident took place and the surrounding circumstances.
8. Govind Singh, a petty ice-candy vendor, used to sell ice- candies on a Thela. On the date of incident the appellant came over there and asked for round shape ice-candy. After appellant consumed ice-candy, Govind Singh demanded price of ice-candy but the appellant refused to make payment and started abusing and gave a fist blow. Govind Singh when repeatedly demanded rupee one, the appellant took the knife out of his pocket and inflicted knife blow on the left side of the chest of Govind Singh. Hearing hue and cry when Lalit, the brother of Govind Singh arrived and made attempt to save Govind Singh appellant gave knife blow on the left side of the chest of Lalit as a result of which he fell down and died on the way to the Hospital. This is the version of the prosecution as to the origin of the occurrence.
9. The question that requires consideration is could the appellant be said to have committed murder? In other words, whether Part I or Part III of Section 300 IPC, would be attracted in the facts of this case.
10. There is no definition of murder in Section 300 IPC, and the section merely takes the four more serious types of culpable homicide, basing on the mens rea, and designates them murder. They are:-
-an act with the intention of causing death,
-an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused,
-an act done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of any person, and
-an act which the offender knows, is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
In the four types of culpable homicide designated murder, mens rea in the first three is constituted by different types of intention and the mens rea in the last is knowledge-two types- one, the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, and two, the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. If any one of these ingredients of mens rea is present, the particular culpable homicide is murder and not otherwise.
11. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (5), observed that the prosecution in the first place was required to establish objectively that a bodily injury had been caused. Secondly, the nature of injury must be proved. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, it was not accidental or unintentional. Once these three elements were proved to be present, the enquiry proceeded further and fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described, made up of the three elements set out above, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The fourth part of the enquiry was purely objective and inferential and had nothing to do with the intention of the offender. Once these four elements were established by the prosecution, the offence was murder.
12. In the case on hand appellant used knife to inflict injury on the vital part of the body i.e. left side of the chest and degree of force released in wielding it resulted in cutting of intercostal muscles through and through exposing thorasic cavity causing chip fracture (cut) of the border of the 4th rib. Parietal pleura and medial free border of the left lung were also cut. There was penetration in the lung tissue and perforation in aortic wall. The direction of the wound from its entry at left side chest wall to its termination at aorta was upward and medial and was 7.00 cms. in length. From the evidence of Govind Singh it is established that as soon as Lalit arrived, the appellant took no time in piercing knife on the left side of his chest. The manner in which assault was made by the appellant, leave no iota of doubt in our mind that appellant intentionally inflicted the injury on the left side of chest of the deceased, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. When a person commits an act, he is presumed to expect the natural consequences and, therefore, presumption arises that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury in the circumstances indicated above and there is nothing on record to rebut this presumption. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, would be that the appellant has committed the offence of murder. It is no doubt true that one blow with a knife was given by appellant but we find no merit in the submissions that appellant did not intend to cause the particular injury and the injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The appellant gave two knife blows in continuation, one on the left side of chest of Govind Singh and another again on the left side of chest of Lalit. The appellant himself was responsible for the incident as he did not pay rupee and even after consuming ice candy.
13. Cases on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable. In Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the accused started remonstrations using filthy language against certain organisers of a chit fund who bad no connection with the deceased in front of the house of the deceased and the deceased came out of his house and asked the accused to go away, the accused on spur of moment gave only one blow with knife to the deceased and pushed him to some distance, in such a situation it was held that accused was guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. Yudhvir v. State of Haryana (supra), was the case wherein the accused also sustained some injuries and he to was admitted in the hospital on the same day almost at the same time as the deceased. The case of accused that he was first attacked by the deceased could not be ruled out and it was held that the accused exceeded right of private defence and was guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC. In Mochi Raju v. State of Gujrat (supra), the injury had been caused by the accused at the spur of the moment in a scuffle during which abuses had been exchanged, in that fact situation the accused was held guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. In K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (supra), the accused was involved because of altercations with the son of deceased and scenario at the time of occurrence did not show that accused had intention or requisite knowledge to cause murder, the accused was therefore held liable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
14. For these reasons the appeal stands dismissed and conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial judge are maintained.