Criminal Appeal No.152/2001
Madras High Court
BENCH: Hon’ble P.N. Prakash J., Hon’bleB.Pugalendhi J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 6th December 2010
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS:
- Section 304 of IPC (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder)
- Section 304(I) of IPC (imprisonment for life Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder)
- Section 323 of IPC (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)
- Section 308 of IPC (Attempt to commit culpable homicide)
- Section 34 of IPC (Acts done by several persons in furtherance)
- Section 300 of IPC (Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide)
- Section 302 of IPC (Punishment for murder)
- Section 313 of CrPC (Power to examine the accused)
BACK STORY
On 17th March 1997 at about 12.30 p.m. some construction work was going on in house No.K-23 Dakshinpuri of Hazari Lal, the complainant Hazari Lal and his father Ram Gopal was supervising the construction work. Appellant Nanko Devi and her husband Kalyan Singh were residing in the adjoining house. Kalyan Singh husband of the Appellant complained that mortar of the construction work was falling into their house. Ram Gopal, father of the complainant denied the same and they started quarreling and grappling. Then the Appellant came armed with one basoola (used for cutting pieces of wood) and hit on the head of the Keli Devi wife of the complainant, as a result of which she sustained a head injury. When Hazari Lal was looking after his wife, Smt. Nanko Devi gave a blow to his father by the basoola. Thereafter, accused Kalyan Singh gave an iron blow on the head of the father of the complainant. The injured were removed to the hospital where subsequently the father of the complainant, Ram Gopal died on 26th March 1997 at about 8.30 p.m. On a charge sheet being filed charges under Sections 304/308/323/34 IPC were framed against both the accused persons i.e. the Appellant Nanko Devi and Kalyan Singh.
According to Dr. Alexander, the cause of death was because of heavy blunt object/weapon whereas death summary prepared at Safdarjung Hospital records that on 26.3.1997 at 8:30 a.m. the patient developed sudden cardiorespiratory arrest and his pulse was not recordable. It is recorded therein that till 9:30 a.m. treatment was given to the patient and ultimately at 9:30 a.m. the patient was declared dead.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the complainant Hazari Lal as PW1 and his injured wife PW4 Keli Devi. Const. Ms. Bimlesh who witnessed the arrest of accused Nanko Devi, on whose disclosure, basoola was recovered from beneath the cot in her house.
This witness has identified the weapon of offense used by the Appellant for the commission of the offence. Thus, in view of this testimony of the eye witness, the weapon of offense is connected to the injury caused ad the crime committed.
Dr. Alexander conducted the post mortem examination. Dr. S.V.R. Chandramurthy has proved the MLC of the deceased. The statement of the accused was recorded, and they denied their presence or any quarrel having taken place. They also denied having caused any injury on the person of eye witness Keli Devi or the deceased Ram Gopal. The accused Kalyan Singh in his statement took the plea that on the relevant date and time he was on his duty in his office and has examined two defense witnesses in this regard. In view of the plea of alibi of accused Kalyan Singh the learned Trial Court gave him the benefit of doubt and acquitted him, however, the Appellant was convicted of the offenses mentioned above.
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
Medical evidence opined that the cause of death, in this case, was craniocerebral injury by blunt force impact resulting from heavy blunt object/weapon and the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The internal injury corresponding to the external injury, in this case, was a depressed compound fracture of the right frontal bone base of the skull.
JUDGEMENT
The conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 323 IPC and other sections was maintained. The Appellant was dealt with leniently as she had been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years plus fine and 2 years plus fine respectively.
The Appellant was taken into custody to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence. The bail bond and the surety bond was discharged