AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Special leave granted.
We have heard counsel on both sides and have perused the medical evidence rendered by Dr. E.S. Moser (Public Witness 2) and Dr. C.S. Naik (Public Witness II). All that Dr. Naik stated was that any of the two injuries found on the person of the deceased "could" cause death, and Dr. Naik who conducted the autopsy, only stated that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to peritonitis resulting in irreversible secondary shock. Thus, the medical witnesses (PWs.2 and II) did not categorically opine that these injuries found on the deceased, collectively or individually, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All .that the medical evidence amounts to, is that these injuries found on the deceased were likely to cause death. We, therefore, think that from the facts established by evidence, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that Nachittar Singh caused the injuries to the deceased only with the knowledge that he was thereby likely ,to cause the death of the deceased. Accordingly, we alter his conviction from one under S. 302 to that under S. 304 Part I, Penal Code, and reduce his sentence to five years'' rigorous imprisonment only.
Nachittar Singles appeal is thus partly allowed to the extent indicated above.