Bhawan
Singh & ANR Vs. State of Bihar [1997] INSC 812 (5 November 1997)
G.T.
NNAVATI, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
G.T.
NANAVATI, J.
The
two appellants in this appeal were convicted by the trial court along with
accused Bishwanath Singh for committing the offence punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC. In the appeal filed by them the High Court
altered their conviction from under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In
the appeal filed by them the High Court altered their conviction from under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to one under Section 326 read with Section
34 IPC. Both the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
7 years and accused Bishwanath Singh was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 3
years. All the three convicted accused applied to this Court for special leave
to file an appeal. Leave was granted to all of them. Bishwanath Singh's appeal
being Criminal Appeal No.356/88 came up for hearing earlier and it was
dismissed by this Court on January 18, 1995.
The appeal of the present two accused as unfortunately not listed fro hearing
along with that appeal and therefore it is now heard by us separately.
At the
outset, the learned counsel for the appellants stated that appellant Bhagwan
Singh has died and therefore his appeal/has abated. Therefore the appeal filed
by Raj Nath Singh alone now survives.
Both
the courts below have held that Raj Nath Singh had given a sphere blow on the
chest of Brijlal. The courts have also held that injuries were caused to Brijlal
in furtherance of the common intention of all the three accused. The reason why
the High Court altered the conviction of Raj Nath Singh from that under Section
34 IPC is that according to the evidence of Dr. C.B. Tripathi who had held the
post martem examination 8 injuries on the person of the deceased were medically
interferred with and the death was caused due to pus in the brain. The High
Court was, therefore, of the view that the death of Brijlal was not the direct
result of the injuries caused by the accused.
What
is contended us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the
said finding recorded by the High Court the appellant Raj Nath Singh could not
be convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. We are of the opinion
that the said finding of the High Court is not correct. Nothing was brought out
in the cross examination of the doctor to indicate that any external factor had
contributed to the formation of pus justifying the view that the death of Brijlal
was not the direct result of the injuries caused to him by the accused. That
apart, what we find is that Dr. Rajendra Singh (P.W. 12) has clearly stated in
his evidence that injury which was found on the abdomem of Brijlal was a
grievous injury and on that evidence alone conviction of the appellant under
SECTION 326 read with Section 34 IPC is justified. As we do not find any error
in the judgment of the High Court this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on
bail. So he is ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining
portion of his sentence.
Back