Halke Alias Hakke vs State of M.P.

G.S. Solanki, J.—Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen has passed the impugned judgment dated 25.05.1995 in ST No. 236/1991 whereby appellant has been convicted u/s 304-Part II of IPC and sentenced to RI for 5 years. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred this appeal u/s 374 of Cr.P.C.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 02.06.1991 at about 4-5 p.m., when deceased Bhagwandas was unloading bricks from bullock-cart, appellant had pushed him. In turn, Bhagwandas objected. Then appellant had assaulted him by Khadrua (wooden piece used in cart) on his neck, arms and other parts of the body. Incident was witnessed by Govardhan(PW-9) and Ramgopal (PW-8). The matter was reported to police-station Deori. During investigation, primarily, Bhagwandas was examined by Dr. M.L. Badkul (PW-12) who found simple injury on his body. He remained in hospital for 3 days and then, he died. Dead body of Bhagwandas was sent for post-mortem. Dr. M.L. Badkul (PW-12) performed autopsy on the body of deceased and found 4" x 2" rupture on left jugular vein and according to him, cause of death was hemorrhage from the ruptured jugular vein and prepared post-mortem report (Ex. P. 8).

After usual investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted before JMFC Udaipura who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen framed charges u/s 302 of IPC against appellant. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and examined Dr. S.K. Sharma (DW-1) in his defence.

On appraisal of evidence on record, though appellant has been acquitted to the charge u/s 302 IPC, however, he was convicted and sentenced u/s 304-II of IPC as mentioned hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court committed illegality, in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. He further submitted that trial Court failed to consider the evidence of defence witness Dr. S.K. Sharma (DW-1) who opined that in the event of rupture of left jugular vein, deceased would not have survived for more than 2-3 hours. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and further prays for acquittal of appellant.

The learned counsel for the State has justified and supported the judgment and finding recorded by the trial Court.

I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record.

Ramgopal (PW-8) deposed that appellant assaulted Bhagwandas by Khadarua. This fact is further supported by eye-witness Govardhan (PW-9). Names of both these eye-witnesses find place in FIR. They remained un-deviated despite extensive cross-examination, though they are chance witnesses, however, their presence on the spot appears to be believable. Khadagram (PW-7) father of deceased tried to pose himself as eye-witness but after considering his police statement (Ex. D/1), I am of the view that trial Court rightly disbelieved him, because he substantially improved his version before the Court.

Deendayal (PW-1) whose house was just near the place of incident, deposed that deceased Bhagwandas was unloading the bricks from bullock-cart. He further deposed that on the hue and cry made by Bhagwandas, he came from his house and saw that appellant Halke was running away from the spot. Though he was declared hostile, yet he has partly supported the prosecution story and from his evidence, the presence of appellant is established on the spot. Nathuram Kotwar (PW-2) deposed that after the incident, he went with father of complainant Khadagram (PW-7) for lodging the report. Same facts are corroborated by Khadagram.

On careful scanning of evidence available on record, it is proved that appellant assaulted deceased Bhagwandas by Khaderua, (a heavy wooden piece) used in bullock-cart.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per defence witness Dr. S.K. Sharma (DW-1), deceased could not have survived more than 2-3 hours after receiving injuries as mentioned by prosecution. The trial Court did not consider this fact. He further submitted that this injury may be caused afterward and appellant has been falsely implicated.

I have perused the statement of Dr. M.L. Badkul (PW-12), who categorically deposed that he found 4" x 2" contusion with abrasion. He further deposed that injury was anti-mortem in nature and after dissection, he found full of blood between the cavity of left clavicle and scapula as well as jugular vein was ruptured with adjoining muscles. He further deposed that there may be bleeding from ruptured jugular vein since 24-48 hours. Dr. S.K. Sharma (DW-1) deposed that due to injury 2" long on jugular vein, the patient could not have survived for more than 2-3 hours.

When I considered both statements on record along with the postmortem report, there was contusion 4" x 2", corresponding to ruptured vein. Dr. M.L. Badkul (PW-12) found full of blood between the cavity of clavicle and scapula which shows that jugular vein with muscles were ruptured and same was bleeded for more than 24-48 hours and thereafter, appellant died due to shock. In these circumstances, trial Court did not commit any illegality in appreciating the evidence on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in which the complainant assaulted by Khadarua resulting in rupture of jugular vein which was likely to cause death thereby appellant committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In these circumstances, conviction recorded u/s 304-II of IPC by trial Court is hereby affirmed.

Looking to the nature of injuries and the facts of case in which incident took place on the spur of moment, was not premeditated. End of justice would be met if appellant be convicted for period of 4 years jail sentence. Thus, appeal is partly allowed and conviction u/s 304-II of IPC is affirmed. Jail sentence of appellant is reduced to R.I. for 4 years. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 30-08-2011.

Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of this judgment for compliance and necessary action.