Bawa Singh Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.655 of 1981
Petitioner: Bawa Singh
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No.655 of 1981
Judges: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI & B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 26, 1992
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Sections 302 and 304 Part-II – Deceased inflicted with two injuries and one of them was attributed to the appellant – According to medical evidence, death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage from both the injuries collectively – Conviction of the appellant scaled down from one under section 302 to one under section 304 Part-II.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Two points arise in this appeal. The first one is whether the appellant had a right of private defence when causing the death of Kaka Singh in order to save his mother Gurnamo and the second one is if he had no such right, what is the nature of offence committed by him. Mr. A.N. Mulla learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the entire evidence of the prosecution as well as the findings recorded by the High Court. After doing so and having canvassed fairly on the first point he has chosen to abandon the plea of private defence and has mainly confined to the nature of the offence committed by the appellant. This alone would need elaboration.
2. The occurrence took place on the morning of October 2, 1979 in a street in Village Dhandyal, District Sangrur, Punjab in which the houses of the deceased as well as that of the appellant are situated. The deceased Kaka Singh was seen by the appellant coming and the former alongwith three others, since acquitted, surrounded him. Firstly, the deceased was felled down and then two blows with sharp pointed and cutting weapons were inflicted on him. One was on the chest and abdomen and the other was on the back of the deceased near the first lumber vertebrae close to the mid line. The first injury was attributed to the appellant and the second one to Dev Singh accused since acquitted. The deceased when injured was taken to the hospital and remained an indoor patient for seven days thereafter and in the meantime was operated upon. He made a statement to the police which forms his dying declaration to the effect that the appellant was the author of the injury on his chest and abdomen. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. at the trial the appellant admitted having warded a blow towards the deceased but does not own the result. The trend in cross-examination of the prosecution however was to own the injury but in the right of private defence. Now this injury, though serious in nature, no medical expert has opined to be individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Rather the opinion of Dr. S.K. Singhal P.W.3 who conducted the autopsy of the deceased was that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting both from injuries no.1 and 2 collectively. It would thus be difficult to attribute to the appellant alone the blame of both the injuries caused to the deceased which cumulatively led to his death or any intention in that respect reflective from a single blow. Having regard to these circumstances and more so on the medical opinion, we are inclined to scale down the offence of the appellant from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. This would require imposition of some sentence and since we are told that the appellant has undergone a little over 3 years rigorous imprisonment and was released on bail under orders of this Court dated 22-11-1982, the ends of justice would met by reducing it to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed partially to the extent aforestated.
1. Two points arise in this appeal. The first one is whether the appellant had a right of private defence when causing the death of Kaka Singh in order to save his mother Gurnamo and the second one is if he had no such right, what is the nature of offence committed by him. Mr. A.N. Mulla learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the entire evidence of the prosecution as well as the findings recorded by the High Court. After doing so and having canvassed fairly on the first point he has chosen to abandon the plea of private defence and has mainly confined to the nature of the offence committed by the appellant. This alone would need elaboration.
2. The occurrence took place on the morning of October 2, 1979 in a street in Village Dhandyal, District Sangrur, Punjab in which the houses of the deceased as well as that of the appellant are situated. The deceased Kaka Singh was seen by the appellant coming and the former alongwith three others, since acquitted, surrounded him. Firstly, the deceased was felled down and then two blows with sharp pointed and cutting weapons were inflicted on him. One was on the chest and abdomen and the other was on the back of the deceased near the first lumber vertebrae close to the mid line. The first injury was attributed to the appellant and the second one to Dev Singh accused since acquitted. The deceased when injured was taken to the hospital and remained an indoor patient for seven days thereafter and in the meantime was operated upon. He made a statement to the police which forms his dying declaration to the effect that the appellant was the author of the injury on his chest and abdomen. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. at the trial the appellant admitted having warded a blow towards the deceased but does not own the result. The trend in cross-examination of the prosecution however was to own the injury but in the right of private defence. Now this injury, though serious in nature, no medical expert has opined to be individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Rather the opinion of Dr. S.K. Singhal P.W.3 who conducted the autopsy of the deceased was that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting both from injuries no.1 and 2 collectively. It would thus be difficult to attribute to the appellant alone the blame of both the injuries caused to the deceased which cumulatively led to his death or any intention in that respect reflective from a single blow. Having regard to these circumstances and more so on the medical opinion, we are inclined to scale down the offence of the appellant from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. This would require imposition of some sentence and since we are told that the appellant has undergone a little over 3 years rigorous imprisonment and was released on bail under orders of this Court dated 22-11-1982, the ends of justice would met by reducing it to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed partially to the extent aforestated.
