Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. FIR (Ex. P-l) was lodged by complainant Gyarasibai on the same day at about 8.45 p.m. at Police Station Kachnar. Thereafter, injured Mitthu, Chander and Gyarasibai were referred for medical examination. Their medical reports are Ex. P-2 to P- 4. X-ray of Chander was taken and X-ray report is Ex. P-5. Panchanama (Ex. P-9) of the dead body of the deceased was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death was shock due to injuries on the vital parts of the body and excessive bleeding. Spot map (Ex. P-8) was prepared. Accused persons were arrested. Weapons were seized on the basis of memorandum and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

14. From this medical evidence, it is clear that deceased died because of causing of injuries by "Barchi" which is a sharp edged weapon from both the sides. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued on the point that at the time of trial, neither the seized weapon was available nor it was shown to the doctor nor any information was sought from which whether injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by such a weapon. They also vehemently argued that doctor has not opined that the injuries were dangerous to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and in this regard they placed reliance on Bawa Singh v. State of Punjab in which under the circumstances that injury attributed to accused was not individually sufficient to cause death, conviction of appellant was altered from Section 300 to that under Section 304, . Part II and Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration) wherein under the circumstances that accused alone had inflicted injuries which caused death but deceased died two days after infliction of injuries, it was held that though the injury resulted in death of deceased, it can not be conclusively said that it was sufficient to cause death and conviction of the accused was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II and also on Shivappa Budhappa Kolkar v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2005 SCG'(Cri) 93-wherein under the circumstances that appellant inflicted single blow with an axe on the head of deceased causing an incised wound on occipital region and depressed fracture on the skullbone and other accused persons inflicted blows with clubs causing a lacerated wound on outer aspect of left thigh and fracture of both the bones of left forearm, internal examination of thorax disclosed fracture on second and third ribs on right side at the anterior axillary portion, lacerated pleura, lacerated and collapsed right lung and collapsed blood in right side of thorax and no external injury corresponding to this internal injury in thorax region was found and there was not evidence of medical expert that the skull injury alone would have caused instantaneous death, it was held that internal thorax injury may be the result of beating with clubs and since the appellant was not responsible for any injury other than the skull injury, it can not be conclusively held that the skull injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On the question that whether injuries could be caused by the weapon seized and the seized weapon must be shown to the medical witness in Court, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kartarey v. State of U.P. , wherein it is held as under:

and also on the decision in the case of Dinesh v. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 2374 wherein as seized weapons were not shown to the doctor for soliciting his opinion as to whether injuries on the body of deceased could be caused by those weapons, conviction of accused under Section 300, IPC was set aside. On the question about the opinion of the doctor that if the deceased had been administered proper treatment, he would have survived, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chuttan v. State of M.P. wherein considering other circumstances together with the submission of the doctor that he can not say definitely that if immediate sufficient medical aid had been provided the deceased could have been saved, conviction of the accused from Section 302 was modified to that under Section 304, Part II of IPC. On this question they also placed reliance in case of Durga Prasad v.State of Madhya Pradesh 1984 (1) Crimes 310. It has also been argued that blood group of the deceased found on the weapon seized has also not been proved by the prosecution and in this regard reliance has been placed on in case oiRaghunath v. State of Haryana .