Hazara Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.1077 of 1998
Petitioner: Hazara Singh & Anr.
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No.1077 of 1998
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 08, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Section 300 Exception 4 – Availability – Accused party armed with gandasi and lathis – Two lacerated wound and one incised – Two injuries, on front and right parietal region, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Held that Exception 4 was not available.
Section 300 Exception 4 – Availability – Accused party armed with gandasi and lathis – Two lacerated wound and one incised – Two injuries, on front and right parietal region, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Held that Exception 4 was not available.
Held:
In the instant case the appellants waylaid the deceased duly armed – A1 with gandasi; A2 and A3 with lathis. This cannot but be said a premeditated attack which resulted in the death of Meher Chand. Injuries Nos.1 to 3. were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos.1 and 3 in the post mortem report were lacerated wounds; injury No. 2 was in-cised wound. From the evidence on record, it is clear that inju-ries Nos.1 and 3 were caused by blunt weapon like lathi and injury No. 2 was caused by sharp-edged weapon like gandasi so injury No.2 is attributable to A1. A2 gave three lathi blows to Meher Chand (the deceased) on his forehead and nose and A3 gave two lathi blows to Meher Chand (the deceased) on the forehead and nose. Injuries Nos. 1 and 3 can be attributed to A2 and A3. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the appellants had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Therefore, Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC does not apply. (Paras 9, 10, 12)
JUDGEMENT:
