K. S. LODHA, J. - (1.) SHAITAN Singh has been convicted under section 302 IPC. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on 30. 4. 81. He has come up in appeal.
(2.) THE only contention raised before us in this case is about the offence which can be attributed to the appellant. THE fact that he had caused injuries to the deceased with a knife resulting into the death of the victim has not been disputed before us In view of the limited argument raised before us we shall only state the facts relevant for that purpose. The deceased Anil Kumar was employed as a helper in the New Power House, Jodhpur, where the accused Shaitan Singh was also employed as a helper and truck driver. It is alleged that at about 10 or 10 30 am on 26 6 80 when Shaitan Singh was sitting with some other persons on a cement bench in the power house, Anil Kumar came there. Anil Kumar asked the accused Shaitan Singh why he was involving him in the letter episode The story behind this accusation was that a personal latter of the accused Shaitan Singh had been opened by some one and the accused was suspecting Anil Kumar to have done so. On this some altercation took place between Shaitan Singh and Am! Kumar and they grappled and pulled at each others collars, however, at that time they are separated by other persons, who were present there. The story further is that at about 1 P. M. when Anil Kumar and one Chander Singh were sitting in the room of the Junior Engineer after having taking their meals, the accused Shaitan Singh came there. He stood by the side of Anil Kumar for a moment and then pulled out a knife from his pocket and gave a blow with it on the chest of Anil Kumar and ran away. Chander Singh raised a hue and cry that Shaitan Singh had stabbed Anil Kumar and he and some other persons ran after Shaitan Singh Shaitan Singh had by then gone out of the power house and latter he was apprehended at Shashtri Circle by Het Shanker, Superintending Engineer before whom he is said to have made a confession to the effect that he had stabbed Anil Kumar as the latter abused him. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police and investigations were started The accused was arrested. The knife was also recovered at his instance and after the investigations the challan was produced against him. He was committed to the court of the Sessions Judge and after trial he has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. As already stated above, the question raised before us is about the nature of the offence committed by the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in the circumstances of the case, the accused should not have been convicted under section 302 I. P. C. but should have been convicted only under section 304 Part II. I. P. C. He urged that in the circumstances of the case the accused cannot be said to have intended to cause the murder of Anil Kumar nor can he be said to have inflicted the injury with the intention of causing the particular injury which has been found to be fatal. It may be stated here that the post mortem of the deceased had revealed the following injuries on his person: - "1. Incised wound 2. 5. cm. xl c m on the sternum at the level in between 5th and 6th ribs in oblique direction. There was cut in the sternum measuring about 2. 5 c m x 0. 3 cm. in size in oblique direction with substernal haemotoma. There was cut in the pericardius 1. 5 c m x0. 2 cm. in size and pericardial sac was full of partially clotted blood about 200 ml. There was cut in the right venticular wall anteriorly measuring about 15. cm. x 0. 2. c. m. in size reaching upto venticular cavity and therasic cavity contains partially clotted blood about 600-650 ml. 2. Incised wound 4 c m. x 1. 5 cm. x muscle deep on the lower I/3rd left fore-arm posteriorly in transversed direction just above elbow. " And, in the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to perforation of the heart.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant further urged that earlier there had been altercation between the accused and the deceased and the accused also suspected the deceased to have opened his private letter on which he was infuriated and thereafter he caused only a single injury on the person of the deceased and then ran away. THEse circumstances, according to him, go to show that he did not intend to cause the death of Anil Kumar nor he inflicted the injury with an intention of causing the particular injury which has been found on the person of the deceased and was fatal. He, therefore, urges that the conviction of the appellant should be converted into one under section 304 Part II I. P. C. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Kulwant Rai V. State of Punjab (1) and Jagtar Singh V. State of Punjab (2 ). On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has urged that the case clearly falls under section 300, inasmuch as, after the earlier altercation the accused had left the place and thereafter armed himself with a knife and came to the room where Anil Kumar sitting and stabbed him at the chest. This clearly goes to show that he either intended to cause his death or at least intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. He has placed reliance upon Vasanta vs. State of Maharashtra (3 ). ;