Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Khattan Mal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 November, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989WLN(UC)222
JUDGMENT G.K. Sharma, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st February, 1980, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, convicting the accused appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 323, IPC to one months' simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were, how ever, ordered to run concurrently.
2. According to the prosecution story, Parmanand used to carry business of selling utensils. Some 3-4 days prior to 30th September, 1978, accused Khattan had come to Parmanand to purchase some utensils, on credit. Parmanand refused to sell it on credit, which irritated Khattan, who became angry. Thereafter, on the night of 30th September, 1978 at about 9-9.15 O'clock Parmanand and Heera were going together through alia Bazar towards the house of Parmanand. In the way dear the shop of a goldsmith, accused Khattan met them. Seeing them. Khattan started abusing to which, Parmanand & Heera asked him not to utter abuses. At this, Khattan took out a knife and all of a sudden, inflicted one knife blow on the left abdomen of Parmanand. He then have a second blow by knife on the eyes of Parmanand. When Heera tried to rescue him Khattan inflicted one knife blow on his left leg and then one another blow on his lips. After that khattan ran away from the place of occurrence. The injury in the abdomen of Parmanand, was a serious one, where from blood was coining out, and so his bushirt was tied around the wound. Parmanand fell down no sooner he reached his house. Hudaldas, brother of Parmanand was called from the upstairs, who was then told the entire incident. Hudaldas took Parmanand to hospital, where the latter became unconscious. The injuries of Parmanand were examine on 30th September, 1978' in the night at about 11.15 O'clock, by Dr. A.N. Mathur. The doctor the then informed about the case to P.S. Gunj, on telephone, SI, Anand Singh came to JLN Hospital on the doctor, after entering a report in the 'Roznamcha'. On the same night at about 1.30 O'clock, Hudaldas lodged an FIR at the police station. The injuries of Heera were also examined by the doctor on 1st Oct. 1978. Khattan was arrested on 1st Oct. 1978. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused, who was then committed to the Court of Session, by the Magistrate.
3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused, Khattan, under Sections 307, 324 & 323. IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After concluding the trial the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the charges and he sentenced him as mentioned above.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant did not argue the entire case on merits. His only argument was that from the statement of the doctor and the injury-report, no case is made out under-section 307, IPC, and according to him, there is nothing on the record to show that the act of the accused was dangerous to life and that the act that he committed, was done with the intention or knowledge that if by that act death was caused, he would be held guilty of murder. So, according to the learned Counsel, the ingredient Section 307, IPC, is not established by the evidence on record.
5. I have perused statement of the doctor, Dr. A.N. Mathur PW 9, and also the injury-report of Parmanand (Ex P. 7 ) Dr. Mathur, in his statement, has stated that the injury in the ordinary course of nature, could cause death, if the victim remained unattended by a surgeon, in time. He has further stated that the stab-wound was 4" x 1-1/2" x paritoneal deep on the left side of the abdomen. After narrating the dimension of the stab wound, the doctor has given this statement that in the ordinary course of nature, this injury could cause death. If we look into the injury-report (Ex. P 7) of Parmanand, we find that by mistake the dimension of the injury has been stated by the doctor. According to (Ex. P 7), this injury (stab-wound) is 1.4" x 1-1/2" x paritoneal deep. Either by mistake, the doctor has stated it, or by mistake, it has been typed that this wound was 4", while it was only 1.4" and not 4". So, the opinion of the doctor that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, was no account of the injury having been treated as 4". But, the position is quite different This mistake could not be detected either by the court or by the counsel for the accused in the lower court. The doctor also could not clarify the said mistake, with the result that no question was put to the doctor about the injury as 1.4" x 1.5" x paritoneal deep. It is admitted, that a knife was used by the accused. It was also not disputed that the stab-wound inflicted by the knife which was produced in the court. But, the point to be seen is whether this injury was so dangerous that it could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and whether now looking to the dimension of the stab-wound, it can be said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Now, as observed above, in the changed circumstances, it cannot be said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in my view, a case under Section 307, IPC, is not established. The accused had used a sharp-edged weapon, a dangerous weapon, but, without provocation, voluntarily, he had inflicted the injuries to Parmanand Parmanand and Heera were going along the way and then, without exchange of any words, the accused took out his knife and inflicted blows to Parma Nand. So, obviously, there was no provocation, nor was there any altercation, and as such; causing injury by a knife, in such circumstances, would be voluntary causing an injury and that too by a dangerous weapon, because, knife is a dangerous weapon. So, in my considered opinion, a case under Section 326, IPC, is made out instead of Section 307, IPC, and I hold accordingly.
6. It has been established that the accused had inflicted knife-blows to Meera also, who had received simple injuries, and so, the conviction of the accused under Sections 324 & 323, has been rightly passed. After going through the entire evidence and the judgment of the lower court, see no reason to interfere in the order of conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 324 and 323, IPC.
7. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the accused has remained in jail for about 2 months. The incident had taken place in the year 1978. Now, the appellant is on bail. So, it would be unfair and unjust if the appellant is sent back to jail to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the lower court. More over, during these 10 years, no report against the conduct of the accused has been made, Stating all these circumstances, the learned Counsel prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
8. I have considered the arguments of both the learned Counsel. A case under Sections 326, 324 & 323. IPC, has been made out against the appellant. The present incident had taken place on 30th September, 1978; and now 10 years have elapsed after that. It would be unjust and unfair if after a lapse of 10 years, a person is sent back to jail for an offence committed by him. No doubt, he has been found guilty, but, instead of sending back to jail, if the fine imposed upon him is enhanced and the period for which be has been in jail is treated to be sufficient, that, in my opinion, would meet the ends of justice.
9. The appeal is, therefore, partly accepted. The appellant is found guilty of offences under Sections 326, 324 & 323, IPC. He has been in jail for about 2 months. So, the sentence of imprisonment which he has already undergone, is awarded to him for offences under Sections 326, 324 & 323, IPC. How ever, for the offence under Section 326, IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment; and for offence under Section 324, IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default, he shall further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences awarded to the appellant by this Court in default of payment of fine, shall, bow ever, run separately. Two months' time is granted to the accused-appellant, to deposit the fine.