LexBALJ NATH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
fB
l2008] 10 S.C.R. '63"6
BAlJ NATiH
V.
STATE OF 'UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2008)
JULY 10, 2008
IDR. ~RIJIT PASAYAT ANO '.P. 'SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s 304 (Patt ii) - 'Conviction vnder-
'Land ·dispute between ·real ccousins -' One cousin gave 1athi
.IC lbJow ·on 'the head ofthe other· resulting in his death - 'Convic-
,.tion Dis 304 (Patt I) with seven years imprisonment by courts
below - Held: Justified - Nature of the injury caused .and
weapon used clearly shows the guilt of the accused - 'Doctor
vriho conducted post mortem opined ·that the cause of dea'fh
,0 was due to coma as a result of head injury.
~ccording to :the prosecution case, -there was 0a land
'disp-ule :between the families ·of two 'brothers-appellant
;and 'K. Panchayat was ·called to 'Settle the dispute . .Appel-
'lalit claimetl that :fhe 1cHsputed 'land 'belonged 1to 'him. !K
fE ·mace a ·counler-claim. Appellant gave a ·1athi blow on the
·head of K who sustained head injury and fell down. Ac-
cused ran inside his house. 'K succumbed to his injuries.
The ·incide·nt was witn-es·sed 'by lhe ·mem·bers ·of ;the
'Panc'hayat. ·F:l.(R. was lodged. 'Investigation was carried
fF
rout. The ·ao-ctor conducted lhe :post mortem examination.
The ·1athi was re·covered at 'the ;instance of 'the -accuseCI.
The trial c·ourt 'convicted the ~ppellant-u1s 304 '(Patt ii) 11pc
,and 'Sentence-a 'him ;to limprisonment 'for 7 1years. if.lti·gh
rcoutt upheld the order. 'Hence :the ipreserit appeal.
rG
Dismissing 'the ·app·eal, :the 'Court
HELD: :ooctor's ·evidence 'Clearly ·shows ·.that there
·were ·'fractures ·of both 1parital :and 'frontal 'bone. 'He •opine Cl
'that 'the ·caus·e :of tteath 'Was ittue 'to {coma 'as ;a .result rof
'636
;
'
BAIJ NATH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH·
637
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
..
'f
head injury. According to the appellant. doctor admitted A
that the injury in question could have been sustained due
to fall on the iron rod embeCtded in the earth. The evidence
clearly established that the accused had given lalhi blow
on the head of the deceased which resulted in the death
~, ._."r:
of the deceased. The High Court rightly noted that the 8
case is clearly covered u/s. 304 (Part I) IPC. Considering
the nature of the injury and the weapon used clearly
shows the guilt of the accused. That beipg so, custodial
sentence of 7 years as imposed does not suffer from any
infirmity. [Para 7] [639-D,E,F]
c
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1050 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, D
.., .
Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1995
Pramod Kumar Yadav, Satya Prakash Sharma and
Rameshw.ar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant.
~atnakar Dash, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and G Venkateswara
E
Rao for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was ~elivered by
Dr. AijlJIT PASAYAT, J·. 1. Leave granted.
.~
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction of the ap-
F
,)..
pellant for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and the sentence
of imprisonment for 7 years as awarded by the trial Court and
confirmed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench,
• Lucknow.
G
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
~
~
Accused appellant Baijnath and deceased Kalika Prasad •
were real cousin. The father of the accused Beche Lal and Khargi
father of Kalika (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 10 S.C.R.
f
•
A was the informant, were real brothers and they lived separately
in two adjoining h0uses .. · There was some dispute in between
the two families regarding 'nat>dan' and fixing of 'kuntas' {peg_s),
which were used for tying the cattle. On the date of the occur-
rence that is 13.7.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., a Panchayat had
~
B been crtlled to settle the dispute in between .the two families.
1- °':
The village Pradhan and many others were also present in the
I
Panchayat. Claims and cou11ter claims were made by accused
t-
and deceased. When accused Baij Nath declared that the dis-
puted land belonged to him and will not be given to the deceased
c who made a counter-claim.
Accused-Baijnath gave a lathi blow on the head.of the de-
ceased Kali Prasad, who sustained head injury, and on account
of this Lathi blow, fell down. Accused Baijnath ran inside his
house. Khargi, Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.