## l2008] 10 S.C.R. '63"6
A
## BAlJ NATiH
_V._
STATE OF 'UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2008)
fB
JULY 10, 2008
## IDR. ~RIJIT PASAYAT ANO '.P. 'SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
_Penal Code, 1860_ - s _304 (Patt ii)_ - _'Conviction vnder'Land ·dispute between ·real ccousins_ -' _One cousin gave 1athi_ .IC _lbJow ·on 'the head ofthe other· resulting in his death_ - _'Convic,.tion Dis 304 (Patt I) with seven years imprisonment by courts below_ - _Held: Justified_ - _Nature of the injury caused .and weapon_ used _clearly_ shows _the guilt of the accused_ - _'Doctor vriho conducted post mortem opined ·that the cause of dea'fh_ was _due to_ coma as a _result of head injury._ ,0
;
~ccording to :the prosecution case, -there was[0] a land 'disp-ule :between the families ·of two 'brothers-appellant ;and 'K. Panchayat was ·called to 'Settle the dispute . .Appel'lalit claimetl that :fhe[1] cHsputed 'land 'belonged[1] to 'him. !K fE ·mace a ·counler-claim. Appellant gave a ·1athi blow on the ·head of K who sustained head injury and fell down. Accused ran inside his house. 'K succumbed to his injuries. The ·incide·nt was witn-es·sed 'by lhe ·mem·bers ·of ;the 'Panc'hayat. ·F:l.(R. was lodged. 'Investigation was carried fF rout. The ·ao-ctor conducted lhe :post mortem examination. The ·1athi was re·covered at 'the ;instance of 'the -accuseCI. The trial c·ourt 'convicted the ~ppellant-u1s 304 '(Patt ii) 11pc ,and 'Sentence-a 'him ;to limprisonment 'for 7 1years. if.lti·gh rcoutt upheld the order. 'Hence :the ipreserit appeal.
_rG_ Dismissing 'the ·app·eal, :the 'Court
HELD: :ooctor's ·evidence 'Clearly ·shows ·.that there ·were ·'fractures ·of both 1parital :and 'frontal 'bone. 'He •opine Cl 'that 'the ·caus·e :of tteath 'Was ittue 'to {coma 'as ;a .result rof
'636
BAIJ NATH _v._ STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH· [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
637
..
G
~, ._."r:
head injury. According to the appellant. doctor admitted A that the injury in question could have been sustained due to fall on the iron rod embeCtded in the earth. The evidence clearly established that the accused had given lalhi blow on the head of the deceased which resulted in the death of the deceased. The High Court rightly noted that the 8 case is clearly covered u/s. 304 (Part I) IPC. Considering the nature of the injury and the weapon used clearly shows the guilt of the accused. That beipg so, custodial sentence of 7 years as imposed does not suffer from any infirmity. [Para 7] [639-D,E,F]
c
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2008
.., .
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, D Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1995
Pramod Kumar Yadav, Satya Prakash Sharma and Rameshw.ar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant.
~atnakar Dash, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and G Venkateswara Rao for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was ~elivered by
Dr. AijlJIT PASAYAT, J·. 1. Leave granted.
.~
,)..
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and the sentence of imprisonment for 7 years as awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, • Lucknow.
F
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
~
Accused appellant Baijnath and deceased Kalika Prasad • were real cousin. The father of the accused Beche Lal and Khargi father of Kalika (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who H
[2008] 10 S.C.R.
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
f
A was the informant, were real brothers and they lived separately in two adjoining h0uses .. · There was some dispute in between the two families regarding 'nat>dan' and fixing of 'kuntas' {peg_s), which were used for tying the cattle. On the date of the occurrence that is 13.7.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., a Panchayat had B[been crtlled to settle the dispute ][in ][between ][.the ][two families. ] The village Pradhan and many others were also present in the Panchayat. Claims and cou11ter claims were made by accused and deceased. When accused Baij Nath declared that the disputed land belonged to him and will not be given to the deceased c[who made a counter-claim. ]
> Accused-Baijnath gave a lathi blow on the head.of the deceased Kali Prasad, who sustained head injury, and on account of this Lathi blow, fell down. Accused Baijnath ran inside his house. Khargi, the father of the deceased along with other viiD lagers took his injured son Kali Prasad to the police station but on the way to the police station Kali Prasad succumbed to his injuries. So the d~ad body was taken to the police station and a written F.l.R. Ext. Ka-1 was lodged. in the police station. One Ganga Prasad had scribed this report. The occurrence was E[witnessed by Ganga Prasad, Thakur Prasad, Brijesh arid many ] others, who were present in the Panchayat. On the basis of this F. l.R chick report, Ext. Ka-12 was prepared and a case was registered against the accused, now the appellant. lnvestigation was entrusted to S.O. Rajinder Singh (PW.5) SJ S.M. lewari F· vyas directed to conduct the inquest of the dead body. The in·quest report is Ext. Ka. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination, which was conqucted by Dr. Lalit Kumar (P.W.6.) The post mortem report is Ext. Ka-10. The investigating officer prepared the site map Ext.Ka-6 and also recovered the lathi G[Ext.1 at the instance ][of ][the accused. Recovery memo Ext. A-7 ] was also prepared. After completing the investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka.:9 was submitted against the accused under Section 302 IPC.
**==> picture [5 x 6] intentionally omitted <==**
**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
I<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>
t-
•.
r
**==> picture [29 x 19] intentionally omitted <==**
**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
....<br>-'< ' '<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>
I I
_r-_ .....
> Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the H[accused. ]
639
BAIJ NATH _v._ STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
; ~
The trial Court on consideration of the materials on record, more particularly, the evidence of eye-witnesses came to hold that the proper conviction would be under Section 304 Part I, IPC. The conviction and the sentence were challenged before the High Court which by the impugned order dismissed the appeal.
A
B
4. Learned counsel for the appellant took the stand that the proper conviction would be in terms of Section 325 IPC and not under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
> 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the c order passed by the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.
6. We find that Dr. Lalit Kumar (PW-6) who examined the dead body of the deceased for the purpose of post mortem found the following anti mortem injury:
"Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm front on interior part of[D ] right side scalp, 10cm. above middle right eye-brow, wound in muscle deep."
.I<
7. Doctor's evidence clearly shows that there were fractures of both parital and frontal bone. He opined that the cause E of death was due to coma as a result of head injury. According to the appellant doctor admitted that the injury in question could have been sustained due to fall on the iron rod embedded in the earth. The evidence clearly established that the accused ·had given lathi blow on the head of the deceased which resulted F in the death of the deceased. As rightly noted by the High Court the case is clearly covered under Section 304 Part I, IPC. Con .. sidering the nature of the injury and the weapon used clearly shows the guilt of the accused. That being so, custodial sen.., tence of 7 years as imposed does not suffer from any infirmity:. G
F
8. The appeal· is dismissed .
...,
N.J.
Appeal dismissed.
