Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed.”

5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the evidence if properly appreciated would lead to only one inference, that the appellant did not have any intention to commit murder. There was only a single blow with the stick, the same happened to be on the head, it was done on the spur of the moment, it was without any premeditation and that it was in the process of a fight between the parties. There is no evidence regarding any previous enmity between the parties and, thus, the case would come under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Code.

9. All the eye witnesses have narrated the evolution of the quarrel and about the conduct of the appellant inflicting the injury with tekani used for supporting bullock carts. PW2-Heminbai, wife of deceased, reached the spot on finding her child weeping on account of a cane beating by Anjoriram. There was verbal altercation between herself and Anjoriram. She asked her son PW5-Kishore Kumar to call her husband Ramgulal (deceased). During the scuffle that followed, Chanda Ram hit Ramgulal on his head once and she caught hold of Ramgulal when he fell down. According to her, there was previous enmity with the accused persons. PW5-child Kishore Kumar is the second eyewitness. He deposed that he had thrown a stone on a cat and in the process, it ran away and landed on the roof of the accused persons due to which some gram kept on the terrace fell down. Infuriated, the appellant Chanda Ram beat him on his leg with a cane. He started to weep and his mother came to the spot. She questioned the appellant as to why he beat the child and she told Kishore Kumar to call his father so as to have a final decision about the ongoing fights. He went weeping to his father to call him to the spot immediately. A scuffle between the father Ramgulal and Anjoriram followed. Anjoriram hit Ramgulal with a screwdriver on his nose while the appellant hit Ramgulal on the head with tekani. Resultantly, his father fell down. He was shifted to the house and thereafter to the hospital. PW9-Latabai, resides adjacent to the house of the deceased. She has also stated that during the scuffle between Anjoriram and the deceased, it was Chanda Ram who hit the head of Ramgulal with the tekani. According to PW11-Kartikram, during the verbal altercation between the first accused Anjoriram and PW2-Heminbai, Ramgulal (deceased) came to the spot and there was a scuffle between Anjoriram and Ramgulal. During the scuffle, the accused Chanda Ram hit Ramgulal once on the head with tekani and consequently, Ramgulal fell down. Anjoriram also fell down, the hands of Anjoriram and Ramgulal were tied to each other and it is PW2-Heminbai who separated Anjoriram. PW14-Dr. R. N. Pandey who conducted the autopsy has stated that he had noted the following injuries:

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;

(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;

(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;

(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;

(g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;

16. In the light of the principles which have been discussed fairly exhaustively, we have to analyse the factual position as to whether the appellant had the intention to cause death, or whether he only had the knowledge about the injury which is likely to cause death. We have to also analyse the manner in which the injury is caused and the provocation for the same. There is no evidence in the case that there was previous enmity between parties though PW2 has attempted for such a version of the case. She has been disbelieved on that account because of contradictions within her own statement under Section 161. The available evidence would show that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant and that it was a case of sudden fight. It has to be noted while appreciating the evidence that Ramgulal (deceased) was called by his wife to the spot to settle the disputes once for all and that the ensuing sudden scuffle with the first accused was in the presence of his wife. It has come out in the evidence of PW11-Kartikram that the injury inflicted by the appellant was during the scuffle between the deceased and the first accused Anjoriram and that after the lone strike on the head of the deceased by the appellant, both the deceased and Anjoriram had fallen down and it was PW2-Heminbai who separated Anjoriram and Ramgulal as they had become entangled with each other. That only means that Ramgulal had overpowered Anjoriram or else the deceased alone would have fallen down and not the first accused Anjoriram. The said conduct of the deceased overpowering Anjoriram during the scuffle was the immediate provocation for the appellant to take the weapon, the tekani which was available in the vicinity to hit the deceased. There is no evidence at all as to whether the appellant intended to hit on the head only or elsewhere on the body. The scuffling parties being in motion, it could easily have happened that the blow fell on the head unintentionally. No doubt the scuffle of the deceased was with the Anjoriram but the entire fight was with the deceased on one side, and the appellant and other accused Anjoriram on the other side. It is not required that the fight must be between the main accused and deceased. The fight can as well be between two parties, the deceased on one side and all the other accused on the other side. There is only one hit. There is nothing to show that there was any cruelty involved by inflicting any other injury or by any other conduct on the part of the appellant so as to hold that the appellant was taking any undue advantage of the situation or that he behaved in a cruel or unusual manner. Thus, all the four ingredients required for treating the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code as stated in Pappu’s case (supra) are satisfied in the instant case.