Ganga Laxman vs United State of Saurashtra

This case comes up before us for confirmation of the sentence of death, passed on the accused Koli Ganga Laxman, by the Sessions Judge, Junagadh. The accused has also appealed against his conviction, and therefore, this judgment will dispose of both the matters.

The charge against the accused was that he caused the death of his brother Pitha by means of a scythe on the night of 29-9-1949. It appears from the evidence that the accused was not on good terms with his father Laxman as well as his brOrs. Pitha and Vira, on account of a dispute about the land and property belonging to the family. For the past one year before this offence, the accused was living separate from his father and brOrs. , in the house of one Babu Mashri in the neighbourhood. On the night of the offence at about 10 O''clock, the accused came to the Verandah of his father''s house, where his two brOrs. , Pitha and Vira were sleeping. Laxman and other members of the family were sleeping in a room inside. The accused gave blow with his scythe on the body of Pitha, which caused serious injuries on the lung and the liver as a result of which he died soon after. There is no doubt on the evidence that it was the accused and the accused alone who committed the offence. There is the independent witness Duda, who was sleeping in the neighbourhood, and on hearing the cries he went to the place and saw the deceased Pitha cunning after the accused, who had a scythe in his hand. He further says that Pitha told him that it was the accused who had beaten him with a scythe and run away. The other witness against the accused is his brother Vira, who deposed before the Committing Magistrate''s Court to the same affect as the witness Duda. Unfortunately he died after his deposition in the Committing Magistrate''s Court, and could not, therefore, be examined in the Sessions Court.

Mr. Vakil, who appears as an advocate appointed by the Court on behalf of the accused, has not challenged the evidence, and there is no doubt that it was the accused and the accused alone who inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased Pitha. There is also no doubt that there is the evidence of motive on the part of the accused inasmuch as there was ill feeling between him and the other members of the family for a long time, and he was demanding his share in the property and the house. It is, however, contended before us that the learned Judge below ought not to have convicted the accused u/s 302, Penal Code, because the Doctor does not say in his evidence that the injuries inflicted by the accused on Pitha were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Doctor was examined before the Committing Magistrate''s Court, and it is true that no question was put to him as to the effect of the injuries. In all cases where a person dies, it is the duty of the Prosecutor to put a question to the Doctor when he is examined in Court, as to the nature of the injuries, i.e., whether they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or likely to cause death, because the intention or the knowledge of the person is to be inferred only from the nature of the injuries. Especially in the case of a murder, it is the bounden duty of the Prosecutor to put the question to the Doctor. In this case this duty was entirely neglected by the Prosecutor, but in our opinion the Sessions Judge, when the case came up before him, ought to have examined the Doctor when he saw that no such question had been put by the Prosecutor in the Committing Magistrate''s Court. This has not been done probably because everybody thought that the injuries themselves were such as could be regarded as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, even though there was no medical testimony on that point. This is not a proper procedure. Whatever may be the opinion of the Judge or the Prosecutor, it is always the duty of the Court as well as the Prosecutor in murder case to have medical evidence on the point of the nature of the injuries. In the present case, however, looking to the injuries themselves, it is clear that there was on the outer right side of the chest an incised penetrating wound 1�" long, 1�" broad and 2�" deep on the eighth rib which out along and reached the liver. The Doctor has further deposed that death was due to syncopy on account of the hemorrhage due to injury of the liver. We think that if the Doctor had been asked his opinion on this point, he would have most probably said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but although in this case there is evidence from which we ourselves can infer the nature of the injuries, it is not always so in all cases, and, therefore, it is safer to put the question about the nature of the injuries to the Doctor especially in murder cases.

Mr. Vakil has referred us to two authorities, and has contended that where there is absence of medical testimony as to the nature of the injuries the safer course is to presume the lesser kind of injury. We do not think that in all cases where there is absence of medical evidence, the Court must regard the injury as a lesser injury, and hold that it is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. It all depends on the evidence about the injuries. It the injury is such that the Court might itself think it to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, even without medical testimony, it may not be open in some cases to say that it is a case of murder, and, therefore, it is desirable that there must also be medical testimony on the point. In the present case, we think that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and, therefore, it is a case of murder u/s 302, Penal Code.

As regards the question of sentence, it is true that there was some motive on the part of the accused, although whether it was sufficient or not to cause the death of Pitha, we are unable to say. The accused is now the only son of Laxman, his Anr. son Vira having died after he gave deposition before the Committing Magistrate, and the accused although he cannot be said to be quite a youth is a young man of about 27 or 28. On the particular facts of this case, therefore, we think that the sentence of transportation for life would sufficiently meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we confirm the conviction of the accused for the offence of murder u/s 802, Penal Code but reduce his sentence from that of death to transportation for life. The appeal is allowed to that extent.