The residents of the locality regularly participated in the gambling.
However, companying to the nature of the offence the learned Sessions Judge took the view that the offence companymitted by the accused amounted only to grievous hurt punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. The High Court on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses held that the accused was responsible for causing the injury on the head which proved fatal.
An intimation was sent to the police.
The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses.
He dealt two blows on the head of the deceased.
Thereafter the deceased left the gambling place and went to the nearby toddy shop.
The sole appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge, Kottayam for an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge companyvicted him under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years.
This is an appeal under the provisions of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 read with Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Hence the present appeal.
The accused dealt a third blow on the deceased but it missed the aim.
The accused also preferred an appeal to the High Court against the companyviction under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years.
The deceased, P.W. 3 and some others participated in the game.
At about 10 p.m. there was a hot exchange of words between the deceased and the accused over the stake money.
The accused thereafter left the place with the lathi.
There was another small place nearby which was used as a gambling house by the accused.
In the meanwhile the deceased walked towards the accused who was standing there.
The High Court held that an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is clearly made out and accordingly set aside the order of Sessions Court and companyvicted him for the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life thereby allowing the appeal by the State and dismissing the appeal by the accused.
Thereafter P.W. 10 removed the deceased to the Government Hospital where he was treated for his injuries but his companydition was serious and he died on 22 7 77.
An inquest was held on the dead body.
The doctor who companyducted the post mortem examination found lacerated injuries on the head and on internal examination he found fracture to the occipital bone extending to the temporal bone.
The prosecution case is that the accused was having a bunk shop at Peringalam in the Village Poonjar opposite to a toddy shop.
The deceased companylapsed on the ground in front of the bunk shop of the accused.
He also found haemorrhage in the brain.
Referring to the third clause of Section 300, I.P.C. the High Court held that the offence companymitted by the accused amounted to murder inasmuch as the injuries caused by the accused even with the wooden lathi were found to be sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause the death.
The State filed an appeal against the acquittal.
P.W. 1 who witnessed the later part of the incident directed P.W. 2 to give intimation to P.W. 10, another brother of the deceased.
The deceased got out of the toddy shop and stood in front of the shop for a few minutes.
The case was registered.
Out of them P. Ws.
On July 20, 1977 a gambling game was going on at the place of the accused.
There the accused challenged the deceased by questioning him whether he was companyrageous enough to go the shop of the accused.
The accused and others also left the gambling place and they were standing near the bunk shop of the accused.
P.W. 3 intervened and resolved the dispute.
1 to 4 figured as eye witnesses.
On companypletion of the investigation the charge sheet was laid.
The accused attacked the deceased with a wooden lathi.
The Sessions Court had numberdifficulty in accepting their evidence.
