SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal impugns the judgment dated January 25, 2003 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Deeg in Sessions Case No. 5/1999, whereby the appellant (herein after described as `accused') was convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year. U/s. 324 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine in the sum of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) AS per the prosecution story on September 8, 1998 the informant Lokendra Nath submitted a written report at Police Station Deeg stating therein that about 9. 00 AM on the said day when his brother Dhanesh Chand asked his tenant Govind (accused) to pay the due rent, Govind became annoyed and inflicted knife blows on the chest and abdomen of Dhanesh. Injury with knife was also caused on the left hand of the informant by Govind. Dhanesh was immediately removed to hospital, where he was declared dead. Police Station Deeg registered a case under sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case camp up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg. Charges under Sections 324 and 302 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above. There was no dispute that the deceased met with homicidal death and this fact is amply established by the medical evidence on record. Dr. P. L. Das (Pw. 14) who performed autopsy on the dead body found following ante mortem injuries (vide post mortem report (Ex. P-41):- " (i) Stab wound-bright red semeelted & clotted blood 3cm x 2cm x depth leading left thorasic cavity obliquely on anteriuor aspect of left chest 2cm above the nipple (left), wound spendle snaped, margin smooth, clean cut well defined & inverted, outer angle sharp of margin of inner angle requisite abraded injury caused by sharp object. On opening of chest cavity the intercostal muscle of 4th intercostal space cleanly cut. On further dissection, thorasic cavity found full of blood, mediactinum found full of blood on mopping out of liquid blood from thorasic cavity. I found wound of entry on anterior aspect of pericardium on opening pericardium, pericardial sac. Found full of liquid blood. After mopping the blood of dissecting the pericardium I found wound of entry on anterior aspect of left nemfride of wound of exit on lateral wall of left nemfride size of wound of entry 2. 5cm x 1/2 cm x depth leading to left nemfride of heart through & through connecting with the wound exit on lateral aspect of left nemfride. Size of exit wound 1cm x 1/2cm margins of wound clean cut well defined & sharp angle. Further dissection on heart all the chambers of heart is full of empty-removing the heart I saw a punctured wound with clean cut margins on inner aspect of lower lobe left plura, pleural cavity containing liquid blood on dissecting the pleura of mopping out the liquid blood. There was wound of entry with clean cut margins angle sharp on inner surface of lower lobe of left lung. Injury cause by light sharp weapon instantaneously dangerous to life ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. (ii) Stab wound with bright red semiclotted blood with corresponding bearing cloth of size 3cm x 2cm x 3. 5cm obliquely on rt. Side of anterior wall of abdomen 3cm away from umbilicus margin of wound smooth clean cut & well defined with inner angle sharp and outer angle ragged & abraded injury is simple cause by sharp weapon. (iii) Abrasion with bright red clotted blood 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x Rt. lumber region of abdomen simple. We have heard the submissions advanced at the Bar. It is the evidence of informant Lokendra Nath (Pw. 1) who is an injured eye witness, that when the deceased, from the chowk of the house, called the accused and demanded rent, there was `tutu- Main Main' and then the accused came out of his room and inflicted knife blows on the left side of chest and the abdomen of the deceased. When the informant attempted to intervene the accused made assault on him also with knife and caused injury on his left hand. Learned counsel for the accused urged that the presence of Lokendra Nath at the time of incident was highly doubtful and no reliance could be placed on it. We were taken through the entire statement of Lokendra Nath. On weighing the testimony of Lokendra Nath closely we notice that even though he was subjected to lengthy cross examination yet his testimony could not be shattered. Dr. P. L. Das (Pw. 14), who examined the injury of Lokendra Nath, deposed that Lokendra Nath vide injury report (Ex. P-3) received one incised wound measuring 3cm x 1cm x 2cm on left upper 1/3 of fore arm posteriorly below left elbow joint. Having considered the injury of Lokendra Nath and his unpolluted testimony we find him trustworthy and wholly reliable.
(3.) IT is next submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence of Dr. P. L. Das ought to have been rejected outrightly since as per the post mortem report the duration of injuries of the deceased was more than six hours whereas at the trial Dr. P. L. Das deposed that the injuries could be inflicted within six hours. This argument appears to us as devoid on merit. Dr. P. L. Das was neither confronted with the post mortem report nor such question was asked in the cross examination. After criticising the investigation from many angles learned counsel alternatively submitted that even if the prosecution case is believed in its entirety the accused could only be convicted for the offence under section 304 Part II IPC. Since the accused did not intend to kill the deceased as the incident had taken place all of sudden on a petty quarrel regarding rent and the knife used was a kitchen knife. Reliance is placed on Sukh Dev Singh vs. Delhi State (1), Masumsha vs. State of Maharashtra (2), Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab (3) and Ram Gopal vs. State of Rajasthan We have considered the submissions and scanned the case law. The scope of clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC had been considered in Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab (5), and on analysing the said clause their Lordship of the Supreme Court explained it as under:- " Firstly, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present, Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; these are purely objective investigations, Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended, Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. " Their Lordships further observed thus:- " The question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present. If he can show that he did not, or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an inference, then, of course, the intent that the section requires is not proved. But if there is nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only possible inference is that he intended possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whether he knew of its seriousness, or intended serious consequences, is neither here nor there. The question, so far as the intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or it inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness, but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. But whether intention is there or not is one of the fact and not of law. Whether the wound is serious or otherwise, and if serious, how serious, is a totally separate and distinct question and has nothing to do with the question whether the prisoner intended to inflict the injury in question. " ;