Ramkaran Maniram Prajapati by this appeal from Jail has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 6-2-1996 rendered in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1994 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulsar at Navsari wherein he, on his coming to be tried for the alleged offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was, at the end of the trial, convicted for the same and sentenced to R.I.for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default further S.I. for four months.
When this matter was called out, we inquired from the learned Advocate Ms Shilpa Shah ( appointed ) whether she had gone through the Record and Proceedings of the case, which was lying in the Court. To this, Ms Shilpa Shah said that she has gone through the same.
Briefly, accordingly to the prosecution, the incident in question took place on 24-11-1993 between 11.45 a.m. and 12.00 noon in village Onjal wherein accused Ramkaran Maniram Prajapati gave a stick blow on the head of Harshadbhai Chhotubhai bringing about his immediate death. This incident was eye-witnessed by four eye witnesses viz (1) PW 1 Maganbhai Vallabhbhai Patel, (2) PW 2 Dinubhai Naranbhai Koli, (3) PW 4 Somiben Chhibabhai, and (4) PW 6 Ishverbhai Bhikhubhai Patel, who filed the complaint. On the basis of this information, after the investigation was over, the police filed the chargesheet against the accused for the alleged offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to stand trial before the Sessions Court, Valsad at Navsari. At the trial, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The Trial Court, accepting and relying upon the prosecution evidence, convicted the accused for the alleged offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life etc as stated above in paragraph 1 of this order giving rise to the present appeal.
Ms Shilpa Shah, learned Advocate ( Appointed) appearing for the appellant fairly submitted that this is not a case where she can persuade this Court that no incident as alleged had taken place. According to Ms Shah her endeavour was to point out that there was only one blow given and, therefore, the case would squarely fall within the ambit of section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code and in that view of the matter, the sentence at the most should be five to seven years.
Now, from the medical evidence of PW 3 Dr. Ratilal Mangatabhai Patel, PW 3, who conducted the post mortem examination, it appears that he had noted the following two injuries on the person of the deceased Harshadbhai. They are (1) C.L.W. 7 c.m. x2 c.m. on the right perital and (2) a fracture near the bone of the right perital head. On the internal examination, it was found that there was a combined fracture as a result of which the skull was fractured into five pieces. According to the doctor, Harshadbhai died due to the fracture on the right perital bone which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to causwe death. Now, merely because the accused had given one blow, that circumstance standing by itself cannot be said to be sufficient to bring it within the purview of section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code , when no other circumstances are highlighted to take a lenient view of the matter. The very fact that there was fracture of the skull which rendered it into five pieces speaks volumes about the ferocity with which the blow must have been given and this blow was given on the deceased Harshadbhai who was trying to run away. In this view of the matter, we do not find anything on the basis of which the submission made by Ms Shilpa Shah, learned Advocate ( appointed) can be accepted. In this view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed summarily. 23-9-96(K.J.Vaidya,J) (K.R.Vyas,J.)