LexDHUPA CHAMAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DHUPA CHAMAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR AUGUST 2, 2002 B [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Sections 323, 3021149, 300 and 148: Murder by causing solitary injury-Clause thirdly of Section 300-- . C Applicability of-Held, accused intentionally aimed and inflicted the injury with deadly weapons in the chest of deceased with the force sufficient to cause death-Confirmed by the medical report-Absence of evidence or reasonable explanation to rebut the same-Under the circumstances, it can be inferred that such a solitary injury inflicted upon the deceased is sufficient in the D ordinary course of nature to cause death-Clause thirdly, Section 300 attracted E F Unlawful assembly-Formation of-Held, when three out of seven accused were acquitted of the charge and no other person participated in the crime, there cannot be any unlawful assembly-Hence conviction under Section 3021149 becomes unwarranted According to the prosecution, an incident of assault took place between the son of an informant and appellant No.2. On the next day, appellants-accused (seven in number) armed with bhalas, lathis, and brickbats gathered near the house of the informant and abused the family members whereupon the informant, her son and and villagers PW6, PW4, PW3, PW2 and her daughter-in-law arrived there and when they made a protest, appellant No.I, gave a bhala blow on the neck of daughter-in-law of PW2. She fell down and died instantaneously; one of the accused assaulted and injured the son of the informant; another accused inflicted bhala blow to PW6, and yet anothe.r accused gave bhala injury in the G abdomen of the informant and three other accused hurled brickbats on the other prosecution witnesses present there. Injured persons were hospitalized where the son of the informant was declared as brought dead. His mother lodged an FIR. Police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons. Trial Court convicted two of the accused under Sections 302 and 148 IPC, other two accused were convicted under Sections 302/ H 412 ' DHUPACHAMARv. STATEOFBlHAR 413 149, 148 and 323 IPC and remaining three accused were acquitted by the A trial Court On appea~ High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences of all the accused with modification in the conviction of appellant No.2 from one under Section 302 to one under Section 302/149. Hence this appeal by the four convicted accused. It was contended for the appellants that conviction of appellant No. B I, was unwarranted as he had inflicted a single blow to the deceased, Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC would not be attracted; that out of seven accused, three were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/149, IPC, and therefore, conviction of accused persons under Section 302/149, IPC was not justified since these accused had already served more than the C maximum sentence under other Sections of IPC, and that they should be released forthwith. Partly allowing the appeals of appellants 2 to 4 and dismissing the appeal of appellant No.I, the Court D HELD: I. On examining facts of the instant case, viz-a-viz settled principles of law, Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC is fully attracted. It appears that the accused persons came armed with deadly weapons and there was an altercation and exchange of hot words whereafter appellant No.I assaulted victim/deceased with a bhala causing injury on the chest rupturing important blood vessels and cutting of aorta and other artery E resulting in her instantaneous death. In view of the nature of injury whereby important blood vessels were ruptured inasmuch aorta and artery were cut and when the doctor opined that death was caused as a result of severe heamorrhage and shock due to the rupture of great veins, undoubtedly, it can be reasonably inferred therefrom that such a solitary F injury inflicted upon the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (424-B, F] Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465; Jagrup Singh v. The State of Haryana, AIR (1981) SC 1552; Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 952; Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration), (1991] 2 G SCC 32; State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam, (1995) I SCC 326 and Mahesh Balmiki alias Munna v. State of MP., (2000] (1) SCC 319, relied on. 2. The circumstance would show that accused intentionally inflicted the injury and the same would indicate such a state of mind of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.