LexHUKAM CHAND versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HUKAM CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA OCTOBER 23, 2902 B [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302, 304 Part II & 323: Murder-Right to se/fdefence--He/d, since injury received by the accused C persons is not serious, it negates the aggression theory-Hence right of self defence not available-Accused inflicted injury on the deceased by deadly weapon and the severity of blow was sufficient for causing his death-Hence Section 302 rightly invoked and not Section 304 Part JI. D On the fateful day, PW12 and his brother went to the field for thrashing wheat. Members of accused party picked up 'khes' belonging to PW12 without his consent and when he asked to return the khes there started some altercation between the two groups. Accused persons called their relative, accused-appellant, for help, who arrived armed with deadly weapon, a Pharsa, and inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased who E fell down, Other accused persons inflicted lathi and Ballam blow on PWl2. Injured were shifted to hospital where one of them, brother of PW12, died. Post-mortem was conducted. Medical Officer opined that the injury inflicted on the head of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. F Trial Court convicted accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the injuries inflicted G on the deceased by the accused-appellant was in self defence; and that the conviction should have been under Section 304 Part I and not under Section 302 IPC. H Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the injury report of accused-appellant, 202 ·I HUKAM CHAND v. ST A TE OF HAR Y ANA [BANERJEE, J.) 203 as a matter of fact, negates the theory of aggression, as introduced by the A defence. No serious injuries have been shown to have been received by any of the accused persons and the pretended explanation as set up under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased received the fatal blow on his head from his own arms cannot but be termed to be otherwise not creditworthy neither acceptable. 1207-D-EI 2. Though there was only one blow but the medical evidence on record definitely indicates that the severity of the blow was such that it was sufficient for causing death. Accused-appellant was in the house. He was called in and he arrived at the scene and place of occurrence with a B Pharsa which by all means is a deadly weapon and it is this Pharsa which C was used to hit the deceased at his head resulting in his immediate collapse and subsequent death. The factum of bringing in the Pharsa at the place of occurrence by accused from his house cannot be ignored. It definitely indicates the intent to use it and thereby cause death. Hence the accused was rightly convicted under Section 302 and ·not under Section 304 Part II. 1208-E, F, G, H; 209-A-DI D Pularu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1993) SC 1487, distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2002. E From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 832 DB of 1997. Shiva Pujan Singh, Mrs. Nidhi Pandey and R.P. Khatana for the Appellant. F J.P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, K.P. Singh and D.S. Nagar, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. The appellant by the grant of special leave of this G Court is in appeal from the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000. The appellant has further been convicted under Section 323 !PC and sentenced to imprisonment of six months and both the sentences, however, were directed H 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A to be concurrent. Two principal issues stand canvassed for consideration in the appeal. Firstly, the order of conviction as confirmed by the High Court remains wholly unwarranted, since injuries inflicted on the deceased cannot but be termed to be in self-defence and secondly having credence on the entire B prosecution story at the most the conviction should have been under Section 304 Part I and not under Section 302 IPC on the state cif evidence available on record. It is at this junct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.