JUDGMENT
1. Heard the counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal itself and we dispose of the same at this stage.
The appellant, Shasti Dhekaro, was tried for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Judge, finding the appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC, sentenced him to life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for the said offence but acquitted him under Section 307, IPC. The trial Court found him guilty under Section 324, IPC also and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with a direction that the sentence will run Concurrently.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this :
The appellant is the younger brother of the informant, Cheru Dhekaro who is the husband of the deceased Daya Dhekaro. Ujwal Dhekaro, PW 1, is the son of PW G. They were residing in the same house in two different portions. At about 8.45 a.m. on 23.5.2002 a quarrel took place between the wife of the appellant and the sister-in-law, of Daya Dhekaro, the wife of PW 6. During the said quarrel the appellant stabbed Daya Dhekaro with a katari and on receipt of the said injury she fell down and died. Her husband, PW 6 when intervened also suffered injury on his right hand. PW 1 Ujwal Dhekaro also suffered injury on the backs of his chest and, thereafter, the appellant ran away from that place. Information was given by PW 6 to the Choukidar and on the next day i.e. on 24.5.2002 at 8.45 a.m. PW 6 went to Nala Police Station and gave a complaint to one Arvind Kumar Sinha which is Ext. 3. A case, being crime No. 37/2002, was registered and investigation was taken up.
3. The Investigating Officer, PW 11, on reaching the scene of occurrence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and, thereafter, sent the same to the hospital with a request to the doctor to conduct autopsy over the dead body. He also sent the injured witnesses to the hospital. On receipt of the requisition, PW 10, the Medical Officer attached to the Government hospital, examined PW 6 Cheru Dhakaro. The certificates issued by the doctor are Exts. 2 and 2/1. He found the following two wounds on the persons of PW 6 Cheru Dhakaro :
(i) One sharp cutting wound over left fore-arm measuring 3" x 2" x 2" cutting through skin muscles and vassals blood clots over wound.
(ii) One sharp cutting wound over (L) part chest wall measuring 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4". The doctor preserved the opinion of injury No. 1 but opined that injury No. 2 is simple and both injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like katari etc. therefore, so far injury of Chero Dhekaro is concerned it corroborates the ocular evidence.
4. The doctor, PW 10, also examined PW 1 and found the following injuries on his person :
(i) One sharp cutting wound over left upper arm measuring 1/2" x 1/3" x 1 /3" cutting through skin mussels and vessels.
(ii) Two sharp cutting wound over left back of chest wall measuring 1/2" x 1/4"x 1/4.
5. PW 12 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Daya Dhekaro and found the following injuries on the dead body :
(i) Incised wound over back on left side/oblique in direction 3" x 1 /2" leading interior.
(ii) Incised wound over chest of right side 1" x 1/2" leading interior inside.
6. PW 11 continuing his investigation examined the appellant and after the completion of investigation filed final report against the appellant.
7. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he stated that a quarrel took place between the parties during which he also suffered injury. He did not examine any witness' from his side.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that even if all the facts are taken to be true, the offence committed by the appellant will constitute only an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. On this contention we have heard the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
9. There is no dispute as regards the cause of death of Daya Dhekaro since the same stands proved by the evidence of PW 12 who conducted autopsy and who issued Ext. 7. According to the doctor Daya Dhekaro died on account of shock and hemorrhage. Therefore, there can be no doubt that he deceased died a homicidal death.
10. The prosecution before the trial Court relied upon the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6 to prove the case against the accused-appellant that the cause of death of the deceased, Daya Dhekaro; was on account of the injury inflicted by the appellant. PWs 1, 2 and 6 are related to the deceased as well as to the appellant. They all are brothers. Their evidence shows that at about 8.45 a.m. on 23.5.2002 a quarrel took place between the wife of the informant and the wife of the appellant during which the appellant stabbed the deceased with katari and when PW 6 intervened, he also suffered injury. The evidence of the doctor, PW 10 who examined the injured and also the evidence of PW 12 the doctor who conducted autopsy, shows that the witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 6 and the deceased suffered injury. The evidence of the eye-witnesses shows that the deceased and the two eye-witnesses were stabbed by the appellant. All the witnesses are natural witnesses since they were residing in the same house wherein the occurrence had taken place. The appellant also did not dispute about his presence at the scene of occurrence. On the contrary, he has stated that there was a quarrel between his wife and the wife of the informant during which he also suffered injury though there is no material before this Court to show that he suffered injury. We, therefore, hold that the appellant, not only stabbed the deceased leading to her death but also he was responsible for the injuries caused to PWs 1 and 6.
11. Now the only question that has to be decided is as to the nature of the offence committed by the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a quarrel between the parties during which the appellant stabbed the deceased. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant, without any motive and without any pre-meditation stabbed the deceased. We, therefore, find that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC and accordingly we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC and, instead, he is found guilty under Section 304 Part I, IPC for which he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324, IPC and the sentence imposed upon him for the said charge are confirmed with a direction that the sentences under Sections 304 Part I and 324, IPC shall run concurrently.
12. With the above modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, this appeal is dismissed.
