Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is well-proved from the evidence on record that in the noon of March 14, 1 987 Moti Singh died of shock due to internal haemorrhage of spleen as a result of its rupture. It is not the case of the either party that the death was suicidal or accidental.

5. The first question for consideration in this appeal is whether the accused-appellant was the author of injuries received by the deceased Moti Singh. Sajjan Kanwar P.W.-2, widow of the deceased, has deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 1 2-1 P.M. She heard hue and cry from the side of the hand-pump, she rushed there, she saw her husband lying on the ground and the accused Bhatu was giving fist-blows and kicks on his abdomen with great force. Hari Ram Darjee P.W.-3, Pratap Singh P.W.-8, Gulab Singh P.W.-7 and Mithalal rescued him with great difficulty and her husband Moti Singh breathed his last saying that he had been killed. She has further deposed that on her request Hari Ram, P.Wr3 went to the Police Station to lodge a report. Hari Ram P.W.3 has deposed that on the day of occurrence he was in his shop, he heard hue and cry coming from the side of his house, he rushed towards it, he saw Moti Singh lying on the ground and the accused Bhatu had caught hold of his neck and Moti Singh told him (Hari Ram) that he had been killed. He has further deposed that with great difficulty, he saved Moti Singh from further attack of the accused. He also stated that Gulab Singh P.W.-7, Sajjan Kanwar P.W.-2, also came running there. Hari Ram P.W.-3, has further deposed that on the request of Sajjan Kanwar P.W.-2, he went to the Police Station and lodged report and the Police came to the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan Ex.-P/2 in his presence. Gulab Singh P.W.-7 and his son Pratap Singh P.W.-8 have deposed that on the day of occurrence Moti Singh came to their house, at about 12-1 P.M. he went therefrom certain boys proclaimed from the side of the hand-pump that accused Bhatu was beating Moti Singh, they rushed to rescue him and they found Moti Singh was lying there. Gulab Singh has further deposed that Mithalal Darjee told him that the accused Bhatu had beaten Moti Singh. Madan Singh P.W.-5 has deposed that at the time of occurrence he was at his field, there he heard the cry that Bhatu and Moti Singh were quarreling, he came to his house and saw the dead-body of Moti Singh lying near his house. Narain Singh P.W.- 6, has deposed that on the day of the occurrence at about 12.30 P.M., he came back to his house from his field and he saw the dead-body of Moti Singh and a crowd near his house. These witnesses have not effectively been cross-examined. Nothing damaging could be elicited out therein which may go to create any doubt in their testimony. Their testimony finds corroboration from the immediately lodged F.I.R. Ex.-P/3 and the post-mortem report Ex.-P/4 prepared by Dr. Surendra Kumar P.W.-4 after examination of the dead-body of the deceased Moti Singh.

6. It is correct that Hari Ram P.W.-3 has deposed that the accused had pressed the neck of the deceased and no injury was found on the neck. It is quite possible that in the process of pressing the neck did not receive any injury. It is also correct that motive is not proved but it becomes insignificant on the face of sound testimony of the eye-witness Sajjan Kanwar P.W.-2 and Hari Ram, P.W.-3, to the effect that the accused inflicted injuries to the deceased Moti Singh with kicks and fist-blows. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held the accused Bhatu as the author of the injuries of the deceased Moti Singh which resulted in his death.

7. The next question is about the offence committed by the accused. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant was not armed with any weapon at the time of the occurrence. It is well-proved from the evidence on record that the accused inflicted injuries on the abdomen with repeated fist-blow and kicks and as a result thereof ninth rib was fractured causing rupture of the spleen. This shows that the kicks and fist-blows were given with great force. From this conduct on his part, it can well be said that the accused was well knowing that his repeated fist-blows and kicks would cause death. As such offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. is proved. From the evidence on record, intention to cause death is not proved. It is also not proved that he had the knowledge that his act was so imminently dangerous that it would in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, rigorous imprisonment for 4 years would be quite reasonable.