MANSHARAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges his conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded vide judgment dated 14.9.89 passed in Sessions Trial No. 106/88 of Rajnandgaon Sessions Division.

(2.) THE appellant and deceased Machhandar were neighbours in village Darrabandha, Police Station Chhuria. The deceased had fixed a pole to tie his live stock on the public passage leading to the house of the appellant. The appellant felt aggrieved because his passage was obstructed. A Panchayat was convened which directed the deceased to remove the pole so that there was no obstruction in the passage. It appears this decision by Panchayat had no effect and the deceased refixed the pole in its old place. This annoyed the appellant so much that he struck the deceased with a Sabbal. As a result of which he died after about 13 days in the hospital. The appellant immediately after the incident went and reported the matter to Kotwar, Sarju (PW -1), who lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P -1) which was registered without number in chichola outpost. Papers were then sent to the Police Station where a formal First Information Report (Ex. P -1A) was drawn up. Crime was registered under section 307 I.P.C. The injured was sent for medical examination. Dr. A.K. Basod (PW -18), vide his report Ex. P -8A, found one lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" on the parietal region with profuse bleeding, swelling around the left ear and its surrounding area. Though the injury was x -rayed yet the. Radiologist could not discover any bony injury. After about 13 days, the injured expired and the offence was converted under section 302 I.P.C. As for the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. The submission of the learned counsel is that it was the deceased who had given annoyance to the appellant by obstinately refixing the pole on a public passage leading to the house of the appellant notwithstanding the decision of the Panchayat for its removal. The appellant immediately reported the matter to the authorities on basis whereof the F.I.R. was lodged. Had the appellant intended to commit murder of Machhandar, he would have dealt more blows or he would have used the sharp edge of the Sabbal. The very fact that the deceased died after a lapse of 13 days, in the facts and circumstances of the case, goes to indicate that it was not a case of intentional killing. However, knowledge may be attributed to the appellant that his act was so dangerous that it could cause the death of the victim and, therefore, the offence will fall under section 304 Part -II I.P.C. In reply, Shri Naik stressed that the blow was aimed and given on the head region and did in fact result in fracture as is evident from the evidence and report on the autopsy surgeon. In such circumstances, the impugned conviction warrants no interference.

(3.) IN result, this appeal is partly allowed. Setting aside appellant's conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life, we convict him under section 304 Part -II of Indian Penal Code and sentence him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.