JAGDISH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 28-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

428 
A 
JAGDISH 
v. 
STATE OF RA~STHAN 
February 28, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Penal Code-Sec. 302-Mutual assault-Injuries 011 the body of deceased 
very severe-Injuries on the person of accused superficial--ConJitions requisite 
~ 
to prove mutual assault-What are. 
)~ 
C 
The a.ppellant and four other accused who wer·e -.:harged with an offence 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
under s. 302 IPC were acquitted of the charge but the appellant alone 
vras 
convicted and sentenced under s. 304 read with s. 34 IPC. Rejecting the vie\v 
of the trial court that since some of the accused had injuries on their bodles 
it was a case of mutual assault and that there was no intention to cause muni1!r, 
the High Court convicted the appellant under s. 302 IPC and sentenced hirr1 to 
life imprisonment. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The High Court was right in pointing out that th~ findings of the 
Sessions Judge were not based on a proper appreciation of evidenc'e, The injuri1:s 
on the persons of the accused v.--ere extremely superficial and could be easily ex-
plained. The accused had not established that the injuries on their bodies were 
sustained in the course of altercation which resulted in the death of the decea:•-
ed, so as to lay the burden on the prosecution to explain the :presence of the 
injuries. Before this obligation is placed on the prosecution two conditions must 
be satisfied viz., (i) that the ·injuries on the person of the accused were very 
serious and severe and not superficial and (ii) that the injuries had been caused 
at the time of the occurrence in question. 
[429 A-H] 
Jn 1he present case neith'er condition is satisfied. The i~1juries were extremely 
superficial and there was nothing to show that they were caused during alterca-
tion which resulted in the death of the deceasd. 
[430 A-Bl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 150 
of 1972. 
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3-3-1972 of the Rajasthan 
High Court in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 354/69 and S. B. Criminal 
Appeal No. 121/69). 
L. N. Gupta, (A.C.) for the Appellant. 
Sobhagmal lain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
--
.. 
-II -- ' 
JAGDISH v. RAJASTHAN (Fazal Ali, J.) 
429 
FAzAL ALI, J.-In this appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlarge-
nnent of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Act, the appellant was con-
victed along wilh other accused by the Sessions Judge under s. 304 
.Pt. 1 read with s. 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to five years R.I. 
The State filed an appeal to the High Court against the acquittal of 
the appellant under s. 302 I.P.C. and other accused. The High Court 
while allowing the appeal of other accused also allowed the appeal of 
the State against the appellant Jagdish and set aside his acquittal under 
s. 302 I.P .C. and convicted him under s. 302 I.P .C. and sentenced 
him to life imprisonment. 
We have gone through the judgment of the 
High Court which has given cogent reasons for holding that the Trial 
Court Judge was absolutely wrong in acquitting the appellant of the 
•charge under s. 302 I.P.C. The injuries found on the deceased were 
very severe which resulted in fracture of the scalp on the left perietal 
bone and also a fracture of the temporal bone. These were the 
two 
injuries which according to the prosecution were the cause of the 
-death of the deceased Jairam. 
The Sessions Judge was of the opinion 
that as some of the accused persons had also injuries it was a case of 
mutual assault and therefore, there was no intention to cause murder. 
The High Court has rightly pointed out that the findings of the Ses-
·sions Judge arc 'not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. 
It is true that the accused had some injuries on their persons. 
The 
injuries on their persons were extremely superficial 
and could be 
easily explained. 
As regards Nanda, it is true that he had five injuries 
out of which two are contused wounds. It was the evidence of D.W. 
1 that he examined the injuries on 25-6-67.i.e. two to four days after 
the occurence. It has not been proved that all the injuries sustained 
by him were sustained in the course of altercation which resulted in 
the death of the deceased, so as to lay the burden on the prosecution 
to explain the presence of these injuries. 
Even the contusions 
are 
not of serious nature. It is true that where serious injuries are found 
on the person of the accused, as a principle of appreciation of evidence, 

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