Virbhan vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The appellant/accused faced the charge under Section 307 IPC and was accordingly convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Jind to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, aggrieved by which the accused has come forward with this appeal through jail.

I have heard the learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae for the appellant and also the counsel for the State and appreciate the services of the counsel appointed as amicus curiae for the able assistance rendered by him.

The case of the prosecution was that on 18.8.1986 at about 9.00 P.M., the accused was beating his wife, on hearing which, P.W.1, the injured, and P.W.2, his brother intervened and dissuaded the accused from beating his wife. As a consequence, on the following day at about 11.00 A.M., while P.W.1Chander Bhan, injured in this case, was sleeping under a tree, he was attacked by the accused with a sickle. The accused struck the sickle into the back of the injured P.W.1, which could not be even removed by the local hospital. The injured was taken to the hospital at Rohtak where he underwent treatment for about ten/eleven days . P.W.7Dr. Vir Singh of Medical College Hospital who examined the injured Chander Bhan on 19.8.1996 at 6.35 P.M. had given evidence about finding the sickle penetrating into the chest on the posterior surface near the spine. He also stated that the sickle could not be removed in the casualty because of the danger of severe bleeding. He found surgical emphasioma around the injury. He opined that the injury was dangerous to life. P.W. 8 Dr. Pardeep Kumar also spoke about the treatment given to the injured P.W.1. In crossexamination he stated that the heart was quite close to the seat of the injury and it could have easily been damaged. He also stated that big vessels which are starting from the heart could have easily been damaged by this weapon leading to fatal damage. According to him, blood vessels were within 5 cms of the site of penetration of the sickle itself and could have been damaged.

P.W.1 injured gave evidence as regards the occurrence although his brother P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case in its entirety. But it has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that P.W.1 had absolutely no motive to implicate the accused falsely as no injured person will leave the real culprit and implicate a person who is a stranger and not connected with the crime. P.W.1 being the injured witness, there is no reason for rejecting his evidence. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial court that it was the accused who committed the crime has to be upheld.

The learned counsel for the appellant very much contended that the offence under Section 307 is not made out in this case inasmuch as none of the doctors examined in this case has stated in his evidence that the injury caused by the accusedappellant was likely to cause death or would have resulted in the death of the injured if immediate medical attention had not been given, though P.W.7 had merely stated that the injury was dangerous to life. I am unable to accept this contention raised by the counsel for the appellant. Intention to cause death is not to be measured by the consequence, but has to be gathered from the surrouding circumstances. If we take into consideration the weapon used in this case being a sickle, the seat and nature of the injury, the motive for the occurrence and the evidence of the doctors, then it will be clear that this is a case where the accused/appellant had caused the injury to the injured only with the intention to cause his death. From the narration of the injury sustained by him and the surrounding circumstances, and the motive for which the offence was committed, one could easily conclude that the intention of the accused was to cause death, and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the offence under Section 307 IPC is clearly made out against the accused/appellant.

Therefore, I find that there are no reasons for interfering with the finding of the trial court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.