MORCHA versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 13-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
744 
MOR CHA 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
September 13, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH, P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Culpable hondcide-Accused causing several injuries on the person of the 
deceased, out of which one iniury which had injured the liver and caused the 
perforation of the larger colon was sufficient to cause the death in the ordin,rry 
course of nature-Medical opinion further was to the effect "that if immedi1lte 
expert treatment had been available and tfle emergency operatlon had been 
performed, there were chances of survival of the deceased"-Whether it alters !he 
C 
nature of offence 
from one under Section 302 l.P.C. to one under Section '.:104 
Part II l.P.C. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Penal Code, Sections 299, 300, 302, 304 r jw Evidence Act, Section 45 and 
Section 291 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
The appellant was charged and tried for the offence under Section 302 LP.C 
for causing the murder of his wife. The Sessions Judge though on a consid1~ra· 
tion of the evidence led in the case including the direct te:>timony of Mst. Jelki 
(PW 3) and Mst,jlModan (PW 8) found that the ~ppellant attacked his wite. 
Mst. Gajri with dagger (Ext. I) and caused injuries on her person out of 
which injury No. 2 which had injured the liver and caused the perforation of 
the large colon was sufficient to cause her death in the ordinarry course of nature, 
convicted him under Section 304 Part II l.P .C. and acquitted him of the charge 
under Section 302 Penal Code, in view of the fact that Dr. Laxmi Narain 
(PW 1) \vho conducted the postmortem examination of the body of Mst. (Jajri 
had said in the course of hi!! examination that "if immediate expert treatrnent 
had been available and emergency operation had been performed there were 
chances of the survival". In State apepal, the High Court altered the conviction 
of the appellant from one under Section 304 Part II LP .C. to that under 
Section 302 1.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence the 
appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Cri1ninal 
Appellate Jurisdiction) Act (Act 28) 1970. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code clearly 
Iavs down that where death is caused by bcxlily injury the person who causes 
such bodily injury ~hall be deemed to have caused the death, althou_gh by 
resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death mii:ht have been 
prevented. 
The mere fact that if immediate expert treatment had been availa-ble 
and the emergency operation had been performed, there \\'ere chances of survival 
of the deceased can be of no avail to the appellant.. [749H, 759A1 
2. The ·injury in the opinion of the doctor being sufficient in the ordinary 
course of nature to cause deaith of the deceased, the case squarely fell within 
the ambit of cl&use, Thirdly of Section 300 l.P.C. 
[749G] 
In the instant case, the appellant appears to have intended to cau~e the 
death of Mst. Gajri otherwise there was no necessity for him to carry the 
dagger with him when he went to the village of his in·la\VS to fetch his wifo. 
.1 
.. 
• .. 
• 
'' 
.> • 
MORCHA v. RAJASTHAN (Jaswant Singh, J.) 
745 
That the appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased is further clear 
A · 
from the fact that he inflicted a through and through penetrating wound on 
the pooterior axillary line which seriously injured the vital organs of the deceased 
viz. the liver and the large colon leading to internal haemorrhage afld shock. 
[749F-G] 
Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1958] S.C.R. 1495 and State of Andhra 
Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 601; reiterated. 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 
!972. 
From the Juagment and Order dated 11-5-71 of the Rajasthan 
\, High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/67. 
Nemo : for the Appellant. 
S. M. Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
JASWANT SINGH, J. 
This appeal under section 2(a) of the Snpreme 
D 
Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 
(Act 28 of 1970) raises a short question as to the nature of the offence 
made out against the appellant on the basis of the evidence adduced 
in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1966. 
The Sessions Judge, Udaipur, who tried the appellant found on a 
\ 
consideration of the evidence led in fhe case including the direct testi-
mony of Mst. Jelki (P.W. 3) and Mst. Modan (P.W. 8) that the

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