http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  981-982 of 2000

PETITIONER: State of Haryana

RESPONDENT: Jagat Paul & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/06/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court   directing acquittal of respondent No.1-Jagat Paul and  converting conviction of rest of three respondents.  By the  common judgment relating to two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal  No. 193-DB of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 330-DB of 1995,   Respondent-Jagar Paul -appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 193-  DB of 1995 was acquitted while in the other appeal the three  appellants were held guilty of offence punishable under  Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’)  read with Section 34 IPC by the High Court. Accordingly their  conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 read with  Section 34 IPC was altered.

2.      The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Krishan, son of Deceased (hereinafter referred to as   ’deceased’) had gone to the village for fetching desi ghee.   Prabhu (PW-9) the complainant was sitting in the house of  deceased and were discussing about the matrimonial alliance.   Saraswati wife of Prabhu came there and told that Krishan  and accused Dalip accused were exchanging hot words near a  culvert on the road near the house of Chando and she  expressed her apprehension that they might have a quarrel.  Deceased and Prabhu (PW-9) went towards that side.  On  seeing them coming, accused Dalip fled away towards his  house.  When deceased and Prabhu were standing near the  house of Jagdish Chowkidar, all the four accused armed with  lathis and gandasis came there raising lalkaras to the effect  that they would teach them (complainant party) a lesson.   Saying so, all the four accused gave blows with their respective  weapons on the head, face and chest of deceased.  On receipt  of the injuries, Deceased fell down on the ground.  When  Prabhu went near his brother to save him, Dalip gave a  Gandasi blow from its reverse side on his head.  Prabhu raised  an alarm of crying for help. On hearing his alarm, Jagmal  (member of panchayat) and Mahabi \026 rushed to the spot to  rescue them from the onslaught of the accused.  All the four  accused persons ran away from the spot. Prabhu and  deceased were removed to general hospital, Sirsa by Om  Prakash.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

On the basis of the FIR investigation was undertaken and  charge sheet was filed.  

The trial court placing reliance on the evidence of PW-9,  the injured witness Prabhu, found all the four accused  persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them for offences  punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and  Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.  Appeals were preferred  by the accused persons before the Punjab and Haryana High  Court which, as noted above, directed acquittal of accused \026  Jagat Paul.  In respect of other three accused persons the  conviction was altered to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC  and the sentence was reduced to the period undergone.  The  conviction for the offence punishable under Section 323 read  with Section 34 IPC was maintained.

3.      In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the  appellant-State submitted that the High Court has indicated  no reason for altering the conviction.  In fact it found the  evidence of Prabhu, PW 9 to be clear and cogent.  On an  erroneous reading of the doctor’s evidence, the High Court has  come to the conclusion that the cause of death was "Cardiac  Arrest".  In fact what was specifically stated by the doctor was  that the head injury with its complications alongwith other  injuries was the cause of death.  

4.      Learned counsel for the respondent supported the  judgment of the High Court.   

5.      It is to be noted that the only reason which appears to  have weighed with the High Court for altering the conviction  was that the doctor has stated the cause of death to be  Cardiac Arrest and Prabhu - the only eye witness had stated  that all the accused persons gave blows with lathis and  gandasis on the person of the deceased.  These according to us  cannot be a ground for altering the conviction to Section 325  read with Section 34 IPC.   

6.      At this juncture it is to be noted that the case of the  accused persons before the trial court was that the offence at  the most is one relating to Section 304 Part-I IPC.  So far as  the question of "Cardiac Arrest" is concerned it is only sign or  symptom of death.  The trial court had elaborately dealt with  these aspects.   

7.      It was recorded as follows:

"Defence counsel next submitted that if at all  the offence made out is under Section 304-Part  I I.P.C and not under Section 302 IPC. In this  behalf, much reliance was placed on certificate  dated 2.5.1994 lying in the treatment record  showing the cause of death as cardiac arrest.  0n its basis, it was urged that the death was  not result of injuries. The argument has no  force because cardiac arrest is only sign or  symptom of death. It symbolises the end of life  but cardiac arrest may be due to injuries or  due to some other reasons also. In our case  post mortem report clearly establishes that  ShishPaul succumbed to his injuries and the  cause of death was injuries suffered by him in  the occurrence In the context it is significant  to mention that there was fracture of left

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

fronto-parietal-temporal region. The fracture  was ’Y’ shaped. Separate three pieces were  present. The fracture extended upto occipital  suture in the posterior and upto orbit in the  anterior. Thus it was a big multiple fracture.  Even brain matter was injured there was also  marginal extra\027dural haematoma in the left  parietal region. Such serious injuries on vital  organ clearly show that the death resulted  from the injuries as also categorically opined  by Dr. Subhash Juneja PWI3 who conducted  postmortem examination. It is true that there  was no sharp weapon injury, but the force  with which the aforesaid head injury was  caused clearly shows the intention and  knowledge of the accused persons. The other  injuries were also on vital organs being on  head, face and chest.  So there cannot be any  doubt about the cause of death being the  injuries caused by the accused. In this  context, it is also significant to mention that  ShishPaul remained unconscious throughout  and did not regain consciousness till his  death. So it is more than crystal clear that the  death was direct result of the injuries and  there was no other cause of death. It may be  added that heart was found to be healthy and  of normal size on X\027ray examination and also  in autopsy, and so it was not case of sudden  heart failure and rather the alleged cardiac  arrest was due to death resulting from  injuries."

8.      Therefore, the conclusions of the High Court that the  conviction would be under Section 325 read with Section 34  IPC is clearly unsustainable.  The trial court had rightly  convicted the accused persons for offence punishable under  Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.  The conviction and the  sentence shall stand restored.  So far as the respondent -Jagat  Paul is concerned the High Court has indicated the reasons for  directing his acquittal.  It has noted that Jagat Paul had no  role to play in the occurrence.  It was noted that the earlier  quarrel took place between Om Prakash, son of the  complainant and Ran alias Ran Singh the real brother of the  accused had reasons to attack  deceased and Prabhu. Jagat  Paul is not related to the co-accused persons.  The High Court  found that he had no animosity so far as the complainant  party is concerned.  We find no reason to take a different view  and therefore the acquittal of accused Jagat Paul cannot be  faulted. The appeal stands dismissed so far as he is  concerned.

9.      The appeals are accordingly disposed of.