HARI YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARIYADAV 
• 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302-Conviction under-Dispute between 
parties, leading to assaults on deceased resulting in his death-
c Conviction by courts below, however, High Court altering I 0 years 
rigorous imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for life-Case of 
accused that deceased died 20 days after the incident, thus conviction 
not sustainable-On appeal, held: Accused came prepared at the place 
of incident-Repeated assaults were made and also other witnesses 
D suffered injuries-Grievous injury suffered by deceased which was 
likely to be caused by sharp weapon was sufficient to cause death in 
-> 
ordinary course of nature-Mere possibility of injury being caused by 
"' 
hard and blunt substance cannot be a ground to disbelieve ocular 
evidence-Further, submission that deceased left hospital 5 days before 
E his death without any information to the doctor cannot be accepted-
Moreso submission was made on basis of paper which appeared in case 
diary on which reliance cannot be placed-Hence, order of High Court 
upheld. 
F 
According to the prosecution case, there was land dispute 
.,.( 
between the parties. On 11.08.1981 quarrel arose between KY and 
CD. KY exhorted other accused to eliminate CD. Appellant inflicted 
a farsa blow on the head of CD and KY gave a blow on his hand by 
hard and blunt object. Other accused assaulted one KD. Accused 
G 
also resorted to firing. CD became unconscious and was admitted 
to the hospital. FIR was lodged. PW 1, 3, 5 and 6 deposed in regard 
to the mode and manner in which the incident took place. PW 8-
..I-
doctor conducted the post mortem. CD died on 01.09.1981. All the 
accused were held guilty of committing respective offences. 
H 
780 
HARIYADAVv. STATE 
781 
.ll 
' 
Appellant was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under A 
section 302 IPC. High Court dismissed the appeal, however, imposed 
rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It was not a case where there was a sudden fight. B 
The accused came prepared at the place of occurrence. An altercation 
--,.. 
might have taken place but not only repeated assaults were made, 
other witnesses also suffered in.juries. [Para 21] [787-A-B] 
Kail ash v. State of MP, (2006) 9 SCALE 681, relied on. 
c 
1.2. Presence of the appellant at the scene of the incident is 
beyond any dispute. The autopsy surgeon in his evidence while 
proving his report, identified three injuries appearing on the person 
of the deceased. Injury No.1 was found to be grievous in nature and 
dangerous to life which was likely to be caused by sharp weapon such D 
...._ 
as Jars a whereas other injuries which were simple in nature could 
·~ 
have been caused by hard and blunt object (may be lathi). He was 
of the categorical opinion that the injury No.1, in ordinary course of 
nature, was sufficient to cause death. [Para 12] [785-B-C] 
Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology by Modi 22nd Edition, E 
referred to. 
1.3. The submission that such an injury can be caused by hard 
and blunt substance may be correct in view of the statements made 
' -
by the autopsy surgeon but merely because there is a possibility in 
)... 
F 
regard thereto, the same by itself cannot be a ground for holding 
that ocular evidence should be disbelieved. [Para 20) [786-G) 
1.4. The submission that the deceased left hospital on 27.8.1981 
without any information to the doctor cannot be accepted. The fact 
that the deceased died in the District Hospital is not in dispute. The G 
"" 
Doctor himself suggested that there was no provision for treatment 
),-
of such patients at Sherghatti. Evidently, therefore, the relatives of 
the deceased took him to the District Hospital for better treatment. 
For the said purpose, the consent of the doctor might not have been 
H 
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A taken or brought to the personal knowledge of the doctor 
concerned. [Paras 16 and 17] [786-A-BJ 
1.5. It is, however, significant that the quotation that the 
deceased has developed unomiplagia and had left the hospital on 
27.8.1981 without the knowledge of undersigned, was made from the 
B purported note made by somebody which formed part of the case 
diary. The said document was not proved. Attention of the 
investigating officer was not drawn thereto. No such question 
appears to have been raised before the H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.