Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The statements of other eye-witnesses are that Prahalad was beaten by the accused persons. Thus their statements are corroborated by the statement of Dr. Megh Singh and post mortem report Ex. P.2. It is, therefore, clear that Prahlad was paralytic and heart patient but on account of the injuries received by him he had shock and died on account of the shock. Therefore, the death of' Prahalad was homicidal in nature.

10. The Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not proved that particular injury which caused death of Prahalad. Dr. Megh Singh does not specifically say that by which injury shock was caused to Prahalad. Prahalad was a paralytic and heart patient. He died on account of these factors. We do not agree with this argument. Dr. Megh Singh has conducted post mortem on the dead body of Prahalad. He has, no doubt, stated that he was having a paralysis on left limb but he had very specifically stated that there was bleeding from left eye and a lot of blood was present on both the eyes and scalp hair. On examination he found 11 injuries. In the post mortem report he has mentioned that internal right testicles were crushed and found irregular. The injury number 11 relates to testicles. No doubt, he had stated that injury on the eye cannot be the cause of death but certainly the injury on testicles is a cause of his death. The injury was to such an extent that right testicles were crushed. This injury caused shock to Prahalad and consequently he died on account of this shock. The evidence is that accused Ram Behari gave blows on the testicles of Prahlad by his leg. This injury resulted in crushing the testicles. So blow on testicles is one of the cause for causing death of Prahalad. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant on this aspect has no force.

11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that Kajodi PW 5 Pramila PW 6, Deoki Nandan PW 9 and Naresh PW 10 are the eyewitnesses. Their statements are not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the accused Ram Behari had intentionally murdered Prahalad. PW 5 Mst. Kajodi widow of deceased Prahalad has stated that the accused persons came with buffalo cart and wanted to keep it in the 'Chowk'. Her husband Prahalad asked them not to keep the cart there. Then, Arun inflicted fist blow on the chest, Raju inflicted lathi blow on the back and Ram Behari inflicted blows by his leg on the testicles. She came to rescue her husband Prahalad but she was also pushed by Ram Behari. In the cross examination she has stated that her husband was never paralytic. She was confronted with her statement Under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex. D2 and she has denied to have given some protions before the police. She has also denied the suggestion that her husband got injuries on account of buffalo-cart. She has also stated that there is no enmity between her husband and accuses except a dispute regarding keeping buffalo-cart in the 'Chowk'. It was also brought to our notice that she has stated in her cross-examination when her husband fell down, Raju inflicted lathi blow and other accused persons beat with legs. From reading the statement of Kajodi we find that there is nothing to disbelieve this witness. It was argued that from the statement of both the witnesses it cannot be inferred that Ram Behari had inflicted fatal injury to Prahalad. We do not agree with this argument. Her statement is very clear and she has stated that Ram Behari gave blow by leg on the testicles of Prahalad and this version she stated in the cross-examination also.

19. In reply to his argument the learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the complainant argued that the case is covered by third clause of Section 300 IPC. The appellant Ram Behari inflicted repeated blows by his leg on the testicles of Prahalad. This part of the body is very vital part and inflicting continuous blows on testicles is clear that Ram Behari had intention to commit murder of Prahalad. A single blow on testicles is sufficient to cause death. In the present case Ram Behari inflicted continuous blows and this shows that he had clear intention to commit murder. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has correctly held him guilty Under Section 302 IPC.

22. We have kept principles laid down in this case of Jagroop Singh (supra) the argument of learned Counsel for the complainant is that the case is covered under Section 300 "3rdly". Ram Behari had the intention to cause that bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He intentionally inflicted continuous blow by leg on the testicles so his intention was clear to commit murder. We do not agree with this argument. It is in the evidence that two or three days prior to this incident there was some quarrel about keeping the buffalo cart in the chowk. The appellants were tying buffalo in the 'nall' of the 'Haveli' of Chandra Prakash. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused were tying their buffalo in the nall. There was dispute about keeping the cart in the chowk. It is also in the evidence that there was no house of the accused persons opening in the chowk. Their house is at a distance from the chowk so the entire dispute was with regard to the keeping buffalo cart in the chowk. On 5-6-1985 when the accused were persons were trying to keep buffalo cart in the chowk. Prahalad objected to it and some altercation took place between them. Thus, the intention of the accused Ram Behari was to keep their cart in the chowk. They arrived in the chowk with this intention of keeping the cart in the chowk. They had no intention to beat Prahalad or to commit murder of Prahalad but in the process of keeping cart when Prahalad objected, a dispute took place and Raju and Ram Behari inflicted blows to Prahalad. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were armed with any weapon or that Ram Behari used any weapon to inflict injury. Ram Behari gave fist blows as well as blow by leg. While beating Prahalad with the legs Ram Behari inflicted injury on the testicles. No doubt, that injury was with force which resulted in crushing the testicles but it cannot be inferred that Ram Behari had any intention to inflict such bodily injury to Prahalad and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved by the prosecution that Ram Behari had intended to inflict such injury which, if inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Ram Behari had, no doubt, inflicted blows on testicles but there is nothing on record to infer that he intended to inflict that injury that is on testicles with the intention of causing death, therefore, "3rdly" of Section 300 IPC is not attracted in the present case. In our opinion the case is covered under Section 304, Part 2, IPC. From the evidence in this case it cannot be inferred that Ram Behari had acted or gave blows on testicles with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. But it is defined that testicles are a very vital part of the body. Ram Behari had this knowledge that beating on the testicles is likely to cause death. He inflicted blows on testicles but had no intention to cause death. He simply inflicted the blows with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but he had no intention to cause death. Therefore, the case is covered under Section 304 Part 2, IPC. We do not agree with the learned Sessions Judge that this case is covered under Section 302 IPC. We do not maintain the conviction of the appellant Ram Behari under Section 302 IPC. We find him guilty of offence under part 304-11, IPC.