SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellant seeks to set aside the judgment dated February 14, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bundi whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/ -.
(2.) THERE was no bad blood between Ratna (since deceased) and the appellant. They were neighbours and their mutual relations were cordial. However on February 25, 1987 around 8 AM the appellant and Ratna had altercations and the appellant inflicted knife blows on the person of Ratna as a result of which he died. Sukhdev, father in law of deceased, lodged the report of the incident at Police Station Talera on February 26, 1987 where case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bundi. Charge under sections 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 8 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance perused the material on record. Death of Ratna was homicidal in nature. Vide Post Mortem Report (Ex. P-1) following ante mortem injuries were found on dead body:- 1. Punctured wound with sharp edged (Stab wound) 1" x 1" x entering into the abdominal cavity on the left side. 2. Punctured wound 1" x 1" entering into the Abdominal cavity on the left renal region. 3. Abrasion 21/2" x 1/4" on the Rt. middle of Rt. scapular region. According to Dr. Darshan Singh (Pw. 1) the cause of death was injury to internal organs i. e. spleen & kidney leading to hemorrhage shock. The prosecution case is rested on the testimony of Mangi Bai (Pw. 6), wife of the deceased. In her deposition Mangi Bai stated as under:- Ge nksuksa ifr iruh edku ds ckgj pcwrjs ij csbdj ckrsa dj jgs Fksa brus esa uunk ogka vk;k o xkyh nsus yxk--- esaus dgk fd rw Gekjs ij dtkz Fkksms gh ekaxrk gs tks Gekjs esa xkyh fudky jgk gsa brus esa uunk us esjs /kddk ekjk rks esa uhps fxj xbza esjs ifr us dgk fd rw esjh vksjr dks /kddk D;ksa ns jgk gsa bl ij uunk us esjs ifr ds gkfk dh ekjha igys rks uunk us esjs ifr ds Fkiikm dh ekjh fqj esa mlds lkfk ckfkecwfkk gqbz rc uunk us vius cksfks esa ls pkdw fudkydj esjs ifr ds isv ds cxy esa vksj ,d ck,a dwygs ij vksj ,d du/ks ij ekjha** In the cross examination Mangi Bai deposed as under:-
(3.) ;g ckr lgh gs fd uunk ls gekjs igys ls cksypky Fkha gekjs igys ls dksbz kxmk ugha Fkka ml jkst uunk fdlh vksj esa xkyh fudky jgk Fkk rc esaus mlls dgk fd gekjs ;gka ij xkfy;ka er fudky] mlesa xkfy;ka fudkyuh gks rks mlesa tkdj fudkya blh ckr ij mlus esjs dks /kddk ns fn;ka** Factual situation that emerges from the evidence of Mangi Bai may be summarized thus:- (i) There was no ill will between the appellant and the deceased. (ii) The incident occurred all of a sudden. (iii) The appellant did not hurl abuses at Mangi Bai or the deceased. While the appellant was abusing someone else, it was Mangi Bai who provoked the appellant and had a scuffle with him. (iv) The appellant had no intention to kill the deceased. Initially the appellant gave a slap to the deceased. (v) Injuries No. 1 and 2 sustained by the deceased on the left side of abdominal cavity and injury NO. 3 was abrasion. Thus possibility that the appellant had dealt with single blow on the abdomen of the deceased cannot be ruled out. In such a situation at best the case can be one where the appellant might be said to have caused a bodily injury as is likely to cause death and he can be convicted under section 304 Part I. Therefore, there is every justification to alter the conviction recorded under section 302 into one Section 304 Part I IPC. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine would sufficiently meet the requirements of justice and to this extent the judgment of the court below shall stand altered and modified. ;