LexGUDAR DUSADH versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G GUDAR DUSADff v. STATE OF BmAR February 15, 1972 505 [J.M. SHELAT, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 111aian Penal Code (Act 45 of, 1860), s. 300, cl. thirdly-Singk blow with lath1 on head of deceased· given deliberately-Nature of Offence. S.ction 300, clause tbirdli, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, consists of two parts. . Under the first part it has to be shown that there was an intention on the pan of the acpused to infiict the particular injury whicr was found on the body Of the deceased. The second part requires that the bodily injury intended to be infiicted was sufficient in the ordinary couhe of nature to cause death. So far as the first part is concerned, the COUJt has to see whether the injury which was found on the de0""8ed was the one intended 1>y the accused or whether it was accidental without his having intended to cause that bodily injury. ~ it is found that the injury was not_ accidental and that the accused inten~ to cause the irijury which W35 ac1ually_ infilcted and found on the body of the deceased. the first part is satisfied. The oourt should then go into the second part and find, in the liaht of the medical evidence, whether the bodily _injurv in8icted was sufficient in the ordinary cour>e of nature to cause death. If the court finds that the requirements of both the parts have been satis- fied, the case is covered by the clause unless it falls within one of the exceptiolli!. [508 C·Fl In tlie- present c;ise, the c~ of the case ahowed tilat the assault by the accused on the deceased was premeditated and that the blow given by the accused to the deceased was not accidental. . The fact that the accused ~ the blow . on the he:id of the deceased with a lathi •howed that it was his intention to cause the precise injurY which wa.• found on the. head of the deceased. N the injury was deliberate and not accidental, and as according to the medical evidence the injury was suffi· cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and as it actually resulted in the death of the deceased, the case would fall squarely within the ambit of clasue 'thirdly' of s. 300, I.P.C., and the appellant would be guilty of Jhe offence Of murder. The fact that the accused gave only one blow would not mitigate the offence and make l:iim guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder 1508. F-H; 509 D-EJ Observations in Cbamru Budhwa v. State of M.P., AJ.R. 1954 S. C. 652, explained and distinguished, CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1969. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 30, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. H 539 of 1966. Nur-ud-din ..thmed and U. P. Singh, for the appellant. R. C. Prasad, for the respondent. 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 s.c.R. .The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J. Gudar Dusadb appellant was tried along with 23 others in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Saran. Eighteen of the accused were acquitted by the trial court. The appellant was convicted under sections 302 and 147 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on the former count. No separate· sentence was awarded to the appellant for the offence under section 147 Indian Penal Code. The remaining five accused were convicted under section 323 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code as well as for other minor offences with which we are not concerned. On appeal ' the Patna High Court maintained the conviction and senfence of the appellant, while some modification was made as regards the sentence awarded to the other five convicted accused. The appellant thereupon came up in appeal to this Court by special Ieave. The leave was, however, confined only to the ques~on whether the offence committed by the appellant was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The case relates to an occurrence which took place in village Khahla in district Saran at about 11 a.m. on August 14, 1965. Ramlal Bhagat, who was aged about 65 years, died as a result of the assault during the course of the occurrence while his son Ramashish Prasad (PW 10) received injuries. The case of the prosecution is that a day before the occurrence Prasadi' Dusadh and Ganesh Dusadh killed a goat belonging to Bahatah Bhagat (PW 8). On the advice of Ramlal Bhagat deceased, Baharan Bhagat lodged a report with the police at 3 p.m.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.