Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.300(3), S.304, Part II - Murder - Intention to cause injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death - Sudden quarrel - Deceased rebuking accused - Accused getting infuriated - Giving single blow of agricultural implement  @page-SC1151 which he was carrying - Blow falling on neck of deceased and proving to be fatal - It could not be said that accused intended to cause the neck injury - Not liable to be convicted under S.300(3) - Conviction altered to one under S.304, Part II. (Para 5)

(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.324 - Grievous hurt - Sentence - Sudden quarrel between two groups - Accused convicted under S.324 and sentenced to six months R.I. - Appeal - Offence more than 10 years old - Accused remaining in jail for some time - Sentence reduced to period already undergone.

AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1150

There are three appellants before us. They along with five others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324, 426 and 447 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court took the view that each of the respondents would be liable for his individual act. In that view of the matter, the High Court convicted the accused No. 3 Patel Rasiklal Becharbhai under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Accused No.4 Patel Naranbhai Shivram and accused No. 8 Patel Shankerbhai Ramdas were convicted under Section 324, IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo further two months' R.I. The other accused were acquitted. These three convicted accused have preferred this appeal.

2. It is alleged that all the eight accused formed an unlawful assembly on 7th March, 1978 at about 4 O'clock near the village Dhanaj, Distt. Mehsana and in pursuance of the common object they attacked the deceased and inflicted injuries on PWs 2 and 5. During the course of the occurrence accused Nos.1 and 5 also received injuries. There was a dispute regarding a right of way and also regarding construction of wall, between the deceased and his brother on one side and the accused on the other. On 5-3-78 complainant Prabhudas and Vardhabhai had watered the field and this water was taken from the well situated in the field of witness No.2. On the day of occurrence i.e. 7-3-78 at about 2 p.m. the complainant and his elder brother and his younger brother had gone to see the plantations in the field. It is alleged that at about 4 p.m. they came near the field and in the meantime all the accused came armed. Among them A-3 Patel Rasiklal Becharbhai was armed with a crow-bar and others were armed with sticks. It is further alleged that A-3 voluntarily thrust a crow-bar into the neck of the deceased and other accused dealt some blows. The witnesses intervened. Thereafter all the accused left the scene of the occurrence. It was noticed that there was an injury on the neck of the deceased and he was profusely bleeding. He was taken in a camel cart to the Government Hospital Kalol. On the way the deceased succumbed to the injury. Thereafter the complainant Prabhudas and younger brother Vardhabhai and others went to the Hospital where they were treated for the injuries. The complainant Prabhudas also went to the Police Station, Kalol at about 7.45 p.m. and gave a report. The Police Inspector registered the case and laid the F.I.R. The inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. P.W. 3 the Doctor conducted the post-mortem examination and also treated the injured as well as A- 1 and A-5. The trial Court discussed the evidence in detail and ultimately held that the incident must have happened in such a way that these persons must have started quarrelling and that the accused Nos.1 and 5 also in turn must have caused injuries to the deceased and the complainant. The trial Court ultimately held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against any of them and accordingly acquitted all of them. In appeal against the acquittal the High Court reappraised the evidence and held that the weapons which the accused-respondents were carrying with them were agricultural implements which the farmers usually carry and possess. The High Court further held that there was exchange of words between Prabhudas and the deceased on one hand and the accused on the other and that was followed by the assault on the deceased and the two witnesses. It also observed that having regard to the manner in which the incident occurred, it is difficult to hold that the respondents-accused formed an unlawful assembly and armed with the object of assaulting or murdering the deceased and assaulting the injured witnesses. There does not seem to be any prior concert or meeting of minds before the assault was made. The High Court, however, @page-SC1152 took the view that the accused would be liable for the individual acts. In that view of the matter, the High Court held that accused No. 3 would be responsible for causing the fatal blow to the deceased, though a single blow, and convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. Likewise, the High Court held that the accused Nos.4 and 8 would be liable for their individual acts which would be punishable under Section 324, I. P. C. and convicted them and sentenced as stated above.

3. We have gone through the judgments of the Courts below carefully and we see no reason to reject the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Taking the findings of the High Court as such we find it difficult to uphold the conviction of Patel Rasiklal Becharbhai under Section 302, I.P.C.