Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Bahadur Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dec 13, 1983

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1980. The appellant, Bahadur Singh, together with two others (Balbir Singh and Khuman Singh), was tried for the murder of Gyan Prakash on 11-4-1980 at village Kharwai. By judgment dated 20-5-1981, the Sessions Judge acquitted Khuman Singh and Balbir Singh but convicted Bahadur Singh under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The present appeal challenges that conviction and sentence.

The prosecution's case was that during a Faldan ceremony on the night of 11-4-1980, an initial quarrel occurred between Khuman Singh and the deceased Gyan Prakash (with Balbir Singh joining later). Thereafter, Bahadur Singh allegedly arrived with a ballam (a blunt instrument) and delivered a blow to the deceased's neck area causing fatal injury; the assault was said to have taken place around 11:00–11:30 P.M. A written report (Ex. P.1) was submitted and an inquest (Ex. P.10) was held; the body was sent for post-mortem.

Medical evidence (Dr. G.K. Sharma, P.W.2) recorded a stab wound at the left supraclavicular region extending into the left thoracic cavity, with the left lung visible through the wound; the cause of death was syncope due to haemorrhage. The appellant in his examination pleaded false implication.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC (murder) was sustainable on the facts and evidence presented at trial.
If not murder, whether the appellant's conduct constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Appropriate sentence if the conviction is to be altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant pleaded false implication in his examination.
The principal contention of counsel for the appellant was that the offence was not murder: on the prosecution's own case the appellant arrived later, a quarrel was already in progress between the deceased and others, and the appellant allegedly gave a single ballam blow. Counsel argued that (a) the blow was a solitary blow to a non-vital part and (b) there was no evidence that the appellant intended to cause the specific fatal injury; thus the act should be treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC). Counsel relied on authorities (including Gokul Parashram Patil and others) to support that unintended fatal consequences from a blow to a non-vital part should not always be treated as murder.

Prosecution's Position

The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses Kashiram (P.W.1) and Radheshyam (P.W.3), who fully supported the prosecution story that Bahadur Singh suddenly came with a ballam and gave the blow that caused the fatal injury.
Shamsheer (P.W.4) partly supported the prosecution story (describing the scene and that the deceased was drunk and had a danda) but did not specifically state that Bahadur delivered the ballam blow.
Medical evidence (P.W.2) attested the fatal nature of the injury inflicted on the deceased and identified the cause of death as haemorrhage due to the stab wound.
Evidence of injuries on co-accused and on the appellant was placed before the court; the nature and minor character of the appellant's injuries did not, in the court's view, undermine the prosecution case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gokul Parashram Patil v. State Of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1441	Illustrates that a solitary blow to a non‑vital part, even if it causes death by cutting a major vessel (superior venacava), may be accidental or non‑intentional; the appellant may not be taken to have intended the specific fatal injury.	The court invoked this authority by analogy to the present facts to support the conclusion that the blow inflicted by Bahadur Singh on a non‑vital part could not be treated as an intention to cause the particular fatal injury, thereby supporting reduction of the charge to Section 304 Part II.
Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 867	Supports the view that where a fatal result from a blow to a non‑vital part appears accidental or non‑intentional, conviction for murder may not be appropriate.	Cited (via Gokul Parashram Patil quotation) as one of the authorities endorsing the non‑intentional/accidental character of certain fatal injuries from blows to non‑vital parts; relied upon to justify not treating the act as murder.
Laxman Kalu Nikaljee v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1390	Also cited for the principle that accidental or non‑intentional fatal injury resulting from a blow to a non‑vital part should not necessarily attract a finding of murder.	Used in the chain of authorities to support the court's view that the appellant could not be held to have intended the fatal extension of the wound.
Virsa Singh v. State Of Punjab, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 458	Considered on the question whether a fatal injury can be said to have been intended; cited as a case where the fatal injury was held not to have been intended by the appellant.	The court noted that this decision had been considered in the quoted authorities; it reinforced the conclusion that the fatal injury in the present case cannot confidently be attributed to an intention to cause that particular result.
Shanker v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1532	Cited as supporting the view that, on the facts, an offence may fall under Section 304 Part II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC.	The court referred to this case in support of its conclusion to convict under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a fact‑based analysis grounded in the eyewitness testimony, medical evidence and the sequence of events as established at trial:

Credibility and Sequence — The court found the consistent evidence of Kashiram (P.W.1) and Radheshyam (P.W.3) credible: a quarrel began between Khuman Singh and the deceased, Balbir Singh joined, and subsequently Bahadur Singh came with a ballam and delivered the fatal blow. The learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the finding that Bahadur Singh was the author of the stab wound.
Medical Evidence — Dr. G.K. Sharma's post‑mortem report established a stab wound at the left supraclavicular region penetrating into the left thoracic cavity, injuring the left lung; the wound was sufficient to cause death by haemorrhage.
No Private Defence Proven — The court found no material in the testimonies to probabilise that the appellant acted in exercise of the right of private defence.
Nature of the Blow and Intention — Relying on the cited precedents, the court compared the present case to authorities where a solitary or single blow to a non‑vital part resulted in fatality but was treated as non‑intentional. The court observed that the appellant struck a non‑vital area and could not be conclusively said to have intended that the wound would extend into the thoracic cavity to produce death.
Benefit of Doubt on Intention — Given the circumstances and relevant authorities, the court concluded it would be hazardous to impute to the appellant the specific intention to cause the fatal injury. On that question the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding intention to cause death.
Conclusion as to Offence — Applying law to facts, the court held that the appropriate offence was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.

Holding and Implications

Core Holding: The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC are set aside and the appellant is instead convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Sentence and Immediate Consequences:

The appellant is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
The appellant is entitled to set‑off as provided under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The formal result recorded in the opinion: "Appeal partly allowed."

Broader Implications:

The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal precedent; it applies existing authorities to the facts and reduces the conviction on the basis that the fatal consequence was not shown to be intentionally caused by the appellant. No broader legal rule beyond the application of cited precedents to the facts was announced.

Show all summary ...

Cases referred:

1. Gokul Parashram Patil v. State Of Maharashtra., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1441.

2. Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 867,

3. Laxman Ka1u Nika1jee v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1390.

4. Virsa Singh v. State Of Punjab., A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 458.

5. Shanker v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1532.

S.S. Sharma, J. - In Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1980, the present appellant Bahadur Singh and two others, namely, Balbir Singh and Khuman Singh were tried for having committed the murder of one Gyan Prakash on 11-4-1980 at village Kharwai. The Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 20-5-1981 acquitted Khuman Singh and Balbir Singh, but convicted appellant Bahadur Singh for an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. It is against that conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed

2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 11-4-1980 there was a FALDAN ceremony at the house of one Girdhari in village Kharwai. At that time records were being played on the loud-speaker by Shamsheer (P.W. 4). It was Shamsheer who had taken the loud-speaker to this village Kharwai. It was at about 10.00 to 10.30 P.M. that accused Khuman Singh came there and told deceased Gyan Prakash to stop playing of the records on the loud-speaker. At this Gyan Prakash took the loud-speaker from the house of Girdhari to his house and started playing records from there on the loud-speaker. Khuman Singh then went to Gyan Prakash's house and told him to stop playing of the records on the

Loud-speaker. At this, deceased Gyan Prakash told him that the records were being played on the loud-speaker at his house and so what objection can he have in this behalf. With that discussion in the back-ground, a quarrel took place between Khuman Singh and Gyan Prakash. On a shout being raised by Khuman Singh, acquitted accused Balbir Singh also reached there. It is said that Balbir Singh and Khuman Singh had beaten Gyan Prakash and brought the latter out of his room. Thereafter, appellant Bahadur Singh came from towards his house with a BALLAM and gave a BALLAM blow to Gyan Prakash causing injury near his neck. At this Gyan Prakash fell down and died. This assault by Bahadur Singh is said to have taken place at about 11.00 to 11.30 P.M. A written report Ex. P. 1, the scribe of which is Radheshyam (P.W. 3) was submitted to A.S.I. Surendra Nath Pandey (P.W. 5) in village Kharwai. The motor - stand of village Kharwai is about 100 to 150 paces from the spot where the incident took place (paragraph 5 of evidence of (P.W. 5) S.N. Pandey). The A S T. held the inquest Ex. P. 10 and seized blood stained and unstained earth besides other articles. The dead body of Gyan Prakash was forwarded to the hospital for post-mortem examination.

3. Dr. G.K. Sharma (P.W. 2) had on 12-4-1983 performed the examination and he found a stab wound 3" X 1" X 5" deep at left supraclavicular region parallel to left clavical, extending deep downwards in the left thorasic cavity. The left lung was visible through the wound. Resides this injury, there was an abrasion at the left shoulder, a lacerated wound at the left parietal region two contusion and other multiple abrasions. According to him the aforesaid stab wound was sufficient to cause death as the left lung was injured. The cause of death was syncope due to haemorrhage. As stated by Doctor Sharma in his cross-examination, the father of the deceased had told him that the deceased belonged to Bhopal. The PANCHAYATNAMA (Ex. P. 10) of the dead body mentions that no relatives of the deceased were present. The post-mortem report Ex. P. 3 also mentions that the dead body was identified by Awadhnarayan who was the father of the deceased.

4. Appellant Bahadur Singh in his examination pleaded false implication.

5. From Ex. P. 4 it appears that a report with regard to this incident was also made by a constable on 14-4-1980 and a charge-sheet Ex. D. 5 had been submitted against Kashiram, Mahesh, Laxminarayan and Mst. Gomtibai. In this charge-sheet, the three accused, namely, Bahadur Singh, Khuman Singh and Balbir Singh and others have been joined as witnesses. Some injury certificates relating to examination of the present appellant and the two acquitted accused have also been filed. Dr. R.P. Tiwari (D.W. 1) was examined in defence. According to him, appellant Bahadur Singh had a defused swelling over the frontal region of forehead besides a bruise, an abrasion and an incised wound. This incised wound was on the left radial side of the forearm. These injuries were simple in nature. Khuman Singh was though complaining of injury and pain, but no external or internal injury was found. Balbir Singh had two abrasions, which were simple in nature. One Mohan Singh was also examined by him who also had simple injuries. With regard to injuries to Bahadur Singh, his opinion was that two of them could be self inflicted and even accidental, but the fourth injury i.e. the incised wound could not be self inflicted.

6. Kashiram (P.W. 1) and Radheshyam (P.W. 3) have fully supported the prosecution story. Shamsheer (P.W.4) has partly supported the prosecution story, but has stated that deceased Gyan Prakash was drunk since the morning. He further stated that Gyan Prakash also had a DANDA and had been assaulting the other two persons who also in their turn had been assaulting Gyan Prakash. He did not, however, state about appellant Bahadur having inflicted the BALLAM blow to the deceased. The Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the trial judge cross-examined this witness. He was confronted with his statement to the police.

7. From the evidence of Kashiram (P.W.1) and Radheshyam (P.W. 3), it clearly emerges that a quarrel had first taken place between Khuman Singh and Gyan Prakash in which Balbir Singh had also joined later. It was subsequent thereto that appellant Bahadur Singh suddenly came with a BALLAM and gave the fatal blow to the deceased. This conclusion, which is based on the consistent evidence of Kashiram (P.W. 1), and Radheshyam (P. W. 3) was not challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant. This conclusion further finds support from the fact that the deceased apart from the stab wound had other injuries also. Even acquitted accused, namely, Balbir Singh also had injuries and even Khuman Singh had been complaining of pain on abdomen and injury. Besides these two, one Mohan Singh is also said to have received injury. The injuries to appellant Bahadur Singh were very minor and the non-explanation of these injuries does not in any manner adversely affect the prosecution story. Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of these witnesses, namely, Kashiram and Radheshyam so as to probabilise that the accused or the appellant had acted in exercise of right of private defence. The cross-examination of Kashiram was on the lines that he with his associates who are the co-accused in the other case, referred to above, had quarrelled with Balbir Singh, Khuman Singh, Bahadur Singh and Mohan. These suggestions have been denied by the witnesses. Some other suggestions to show the enmity of these witnesses with appellant Bahadur Singh were also made, but in our opinion, those reasons in themselves are in the circumstances insufficient to reject the evidence of Kashiram (P.W. 1). That apart, there also is evidence of Radheshyam (P.W. 3), which lends assurance to the testimony of Kashiram and fully implicates the appellant. We are accordingly satisfied that the learned counsel for the appellant did not rightly cha1Jenge the finding about appellant Bahadur Singh being the author of the stab wound on the body of the deceased.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, however, was that in the circumstances, the offence against the appellant would not be that of murder. On the prosecution's own case, appellant Bahadur Singh had come later. A quarrel was already going on between the deceased and others. It was at this stage that the appellant had inflicted BALLAM blow on the deceased. Neither of the two eyewitnesses state that the appellant had given any further blow or had caused any other injury to the deceased. In Gokul Parashram Patil v. State Of Maharashtra.1 there was an internal injury on the left clavicle. The doctor who had performed the autopsy had opined that the damage caused as a result of this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In that context their Lordships observed as follows:

"The solitary blow given by the appellant to the deceased was on the left clavicle -a non-vital part-and it would be too much to say that the appellant knew that the superior venacava would be cut as a result of that wound. Even a medical man perhaps may not have been able to judge the location of the superior venacava with any precision of that type. The fact that the venacava was cut must, therefore, be ascribed to a non-intentional or accidental circumstance. This was precisely the view taken in Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration2, by Sikri, J., and in Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. State of Maharashtra3, by Hidayatullah, C.J."

Their Lordships had considered the decision in Virsa Singh v. State Of Punjab.4. It was observed that the said fatal injury cannot be said to have been intended by the appellant.

9. In our opinion, the circumstances, in the instant case are some what similar, in the sense that the appellant on coming with the BALLAM inflicted a blow on a non-vital part and he cannot be taken to have intended that the wound would extend downwards in the left thorasic cavity. On the facts and in the circumstances, as they are, it would be hazardous to say that the appellant intended to cause this particular injury. In any event, the appellant is entitled to a benefit of doubt on this question. The offence, therefore, would clearly fall under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code and would not be that of murder punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code. See also Shanker v. State of Madhya Pradesh5.

10. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code are set aside and instead he is convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. We had heard the learned counsel for the appellant even on the question of sentence. In our opinion, five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part II would in the circumstances, be adequate and the appellant is sentenced accordingly. The appellant shall be entitled to a set-off as provided under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Appeal partly allowed.