LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus PALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF HARYANA v. PALA AND ORS. JANUARY 29, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Ss.302 r/2, 34, 304 Pmt ll-Murder-Inte11tion to cause death-T1ial C Cowt co11victing for murdei-High Court Convicting u11der S.304 Part II and sentencing the accused to undergo in1prison111ent to the period already under- gone--On appeal held, accused shared co111n1on intention to kill the deceased-Hence convicted u11der S.302 r/2 S.34 and sentenced to impriso11- ment for life. D State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Pu1111ayya, (1976] 4 SCC 382 relief on. Lyon's Medical Jurispmdence for India (Tenth Edution), referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1996. E From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.92 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cr!. A No. 145-DB of 1990. D.B. Vohra for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant. F Rajiv K Garg and N.D. Garg for the Complainant. B.K. Mehta and Prem Malhotra for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : G Leave granted. We have heard the counse.1 on both sides. The facts are thal in the evening of December 6, 1989, the deceased Rati Ram, who was Lambardar of the village, had gone on stroll outside the village. While he was coming at about 8.30 p.m., the appellants emerged from their house and each of H them having been armed with musals, A-1 had attacked the deceased when 1022 • , , ~- STATEv. PALA 1023 he came in front of their house, on the head and hit him three times on A - different parts. When the deceased had fallen, A-2 again beaten him thrice on chest, abdomen and other parts of the body. PW-6 and 7, the son and brother of the deceased, who were coming in search of him had witnessed the occurrence. When PW-7 raised the cry, the accused had gone in and went away. The deceased was taken to the hospital. He died five days B thereafter. The doctor, PW-9, R.M. Singh, conducted autopsy. He noted seven injuries and injury nos. 2 and 3 were head injuries. Injury No. 2 was a lacerated wound which was inflicted on the right mastoid region of size of 4cm x 1 cm. It was irregular in shape. According to the doctor, the cause of the death was due to septicaemia which resulted as a result of head-in- jury and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the c injuries were ante/mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He had stated that "Septicaemia is the direct result of the head-injury. This not a disease. In other words, head injury is the cause of death. The injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused by musals Ex. P-1 and P-2." In the cross-examination, he stated that "Septicaemia has no relation with bleeding. It is incorrect to suggest D that injuries in this case are not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Sessions Court convicted the respondents, applying clause thirdly of Section 300 !PC, under Section 302 !PC and sentenced that to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court had applied exception 4 to Section 300 !PC and converted the offence of E murder into culpable homicide not amounting to murder and convicted under Section 304 Part JI and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment to the period already undergone and accordingly got them released. Thus this appeal by special leave. F It is not a case of a sudden fight upon heat of passion. The accused bet the deceased taking undue advantage. Therefore, Shri Mehta, learned , senior counsel appearing for the respondents, fairly and rightly has not placed his case under Exception 4 to Section 300. On the other hand he contended that when death was due to septicaemia, it cannot be referable G to the cause of the death in the ordinary course of nature due to anti ' , mortom injuries and that, therefore, the offence of murder has not been made out. In support thereof, he sought to place reliance on Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence for India (Tenth Edition) at page 222. It is stated therein that "Danger to life depends, primarily, on the amount of hemor- rhage, on the organ wounded, and on the extent of shock; secondarily, on H 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. A secondary hemorrhage, on the occurrence of septicaemia, erysipelas, tetanus, or other complications. In answering the question whether a wound is dangerous to life, the danger must be assessed on the probable primary
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.