State of H.P. vs Krishna Devi

V.K. Sharma, J.—The Respondent herein, Krishna Devi, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. However, the trial ended in conviction for a lesser offence u/s 325 I.P.C. Consequently, she was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. As per default clause, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months was also imposed.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with acquittal of the Respondent for the graver offence u/s 302 I.P.C., the State is in appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In brief the prosecution case is that the Respondent is daughter of Shri Bhagat Ram of village Ser Jagas, who is Jeth (husband''s elder brother) of Smt. Naino Devi (PW-2). They are further related to each other by another relationship, that is the Respondent is married to Man Singh, brother of PW-2 Smt. Naino Devi in village Kotli. Mohinder Singh deceased was cousin of Smt. Naino Devi.

On the fateful day, 02.08.1996, PW-2 Smt. Naino Devi had brought one kg Desi Ghee, which she intended to give to her brother Man Singh and cousin Mohinder Singh in equal measure. In the morning of 03.08.1996 when Smt. Naino Devi came to the house of Man Singh, he and his wife Krishna Devi (Respondent) were not present there. In the meantime, Mohinder Singh also happened to come there. At this juncture, Smt. Naino Devi is said to have given half kg Desi Ghee to Mohinder Singh in a ''lota'' (a round shaped brass vessel). At that time they were sitting in the kitchen of the Respondent, who in the meantime happened to arrive there. On seeing Smt. Naino Devi and Mohinder Singh, she started hurling abuses at them saying that as to why they had come to her house. On this, both of them, that is, Smt. Naino Devi and Mohinder Singh got up and started coming out of the kitchen. However, the Respondent took up a piece of pine fuel wood lying near the ''Chulha'' (hearth) and hit Mohinder Singh with the same on his head and he fell on the ground. At the same time, the Respondent ran away from the spot. The alarm raised by Smt. Naino Devi attracted witnesses Devinder Singh and Durga Singh to the spot. On the statement of Smt. Naino Devi Ex. PC u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure., formal FIR for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. was registered against the Respondent at Police Station Rajgarh. The autopsy carried out on the dead body of the deceased revealed that he had died due to the head injury.

The Respondent was arrested from her parental house in village Ser Jagas. The weapon of offence was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by her on 03.08.1996. The blood stained clothes belonging to the Respondent were also taken into possession by the police and sent for forensic examination. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet u/s 302 I.P.C. was laid against her.

In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. The Respondent while denying other incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution evidence admitted having given a blow with the aforesaid piece of fuel wood on the head of the deceased on 03.08.1996 and that she was arrested by the police from her parental house in village Ser Jagas. She also stated that she did not know how or under what circumstances she gave ''lakkar'' blow to the deceased as it all happened "in a moment under a fit". It shall be appropriate to notice her version to this effect contained in answer to question No. 21 of the statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. verbatim which is to the following effect:

I do not know how and under what circumstances I gave the Lakkar blow on Mohinder Singh and thereafter went to the house of my parents. It all happened in a moment under a fit. Some times I do not know the things I do. My husband has not got me medically checked up at any time. I have no ill-will or enmity with Mohinder Singh. I am innocent.

In nut-shell, the Respondent pleaded innocence. In defence, she had brought on record a copy of prescription slip of Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, vide which she had been diagnosed as border line case of Schizophrenia.

We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the Appellant-State and perused the records.

It is manifest from the evidence on record that the Respondent has quite categorically admitted having given a ''lakkar'' blow on the head of the deceased due to which he fell down. Now arises the question as to the culpability of the act alleged against the Respondent as admitted by her. As per prosecution, she is guilty for the offence of murder u/s 302 I.P.C. However, the learned Sessions Judge on appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution during the trial has come to the conclusion that "the injury caused on the person of Mohinder Singh by the accused can at the most be taken as a grievous injury with blunt weapon which is punishable u/s 325 I.P.C". While arriving at this inference, the learned trial judge has placed reliance upon the case law reported as Pularu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Bhalchandra 1989 Cri LJ 1709.

It is apparent from the genesis of the occurrence that the Respondent had gone out of her house and had just returned at the relevant time. Thus, it can be safely inferred that she had no prior knowledge about the visit of Smt. Naino Devi and the deceased to her house. The entire occurrence had occurred at a spur of moment. The Respondent had given only one blow to the deceased with the aforesaid piece of fuel wood of the length of 23 inches which incidently hit him on the head. In such circumstances, neither intention to cause death of the deceased nor the knowledge that her act would cause his death can be attributed to her.

In view of the above and on an overall view of the matter the impugned judgment dated 11.03.1997 holding the Respondent guilty for the offence punishable u/s 325 I.P.C. instead the charged offence u/s 302 I.P.C. does not suffer from any infirmity and as such does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.