Shyamlals eyes were bulging out.
Shyamlal was lying on the ground and.
Uttam Giri wanted to go to the house of Hotchand and the appellant directed his brother, Shyamlal companypany Uttam Giri.
Shyamsingh, deceased was sitting on his chest.
Sampat Singh, the appellant, had a sceptic wound of 3/4 X 1/2 skin deep on the right little finger and an abrasion 1/4 x 1/4 on the front of the right knee.
In spite of the operation performed on him Shyam Singh expired on March 31, 1963 at 4 a.m. and the postmortam was performed on the body by Dr. Har Govind.
The striking of the deceased by the appellant with Jambia was the companymon case of the parties.
Shyamlal the brother of the appellant, was certainly having the worst of the struggle with Shyamsingh and the circumstances certainly justified the appellants attempt to force them apart Both companyrts held that the nature of the attack on Shyamlal by Shyamsingh was number such as to have necessitated the infliction of the second injury by the Jambia.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 27, 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Criminal Appeal No.
Some friends, viz.,
For this the Sessions Judge relied on the statement of the accused.
The High Court relied on the statement of the.
The Sessions Judge further found that this incident had taken place substantially in the manner deposed to by the accused Sampat Singh and others and number as alleged by the prose cution and that Shyamsingh had received the fatal injury with a Jambia from Sampatsingh when the former was sitting on the chest of Shyamlal and had caught hold of his neck.
The accused Achalsingh was arrested long time after the crime i.e., on 19th April, 1963.
There they repeated the statements made by them before the companymitting Magistrate.
appellant himself before the companymitting companyrt that the deceased had caught hold of the neck of his brother.
The Judge further found that the Jambia was number with the appellant initially but was taken from the person of the deceased.
I./69 16 standing.
Shyamsingh, Ratan Kanwar and Ambalal were taken away by Rameshwar to the police station and a first information report was lodged at 8.30 p.m. The injured persons were sent to the hospital and Shamsingh was admitted as an indoor patient.
The, prosecution evidence of Ratan Kanwar, Rameshwar and other witnesses was that the in .
On examination by the Munsif Magistrate of Jodhpur, Sam patsingh gave a version of the incident which was companypletely at variance with the prosecution story.
Both companyrts accepted the appellants version that he was exercising his right of private defence of the person of his brother.
Shortly thereafter, he heard the cry of Shamlal that he was being beaten and companying out of the house on to the road he found Shyamsingh, the deceased, Nainsingh, Ambalal and Satyanarain beating Shyamlal and Uttam Giri.
According to the appellant he had given these blows to save the life of his brother Shyamlal and had thereafter run away throwing the Jambia on the spot.
Thereafter the accused left the place.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The main question involved in this appeal is.
The prosecution case was as follows.
Asulal, Kishensingh and Uttam Giri had also gathered in their house for the purpose of going to a fair.
Accordingly to the High Court, however, the circumstances were more companysistent with the infliction of the injury while the deceased Shyamsingh was Sup.
On the person of Ratan Kanwar there was only one incised wound while there were three such wounds on the person of Ambalal, two on the person of Nain Singh and one on the person of Satyanarain.
Ratan Kanwar who tried to intervene was also hurt.
The accused were companymitted for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur.
As regards the second occurrence on the same day at about 9 p.m. the Judge held that there was numberbeating given by any of the accused to the prosecution witnesses before Shyamsingh reached the place of occurrence.
On the person of some of the other accused several abrasions were numbericed on medical examination.
Incised wound 1 1/2 x 1/2 x cavity deep on the left lumbar region, and Teeth marks elliptical, in shape 1 1/2 in area on the left shoulder.
The City, Magistrate, Jodhpur who came in answer to a summons recorded another dying declaration at 10.50 p.m. The injury report on the person of Shyamsingh by Dr. K.C. Singhal was as follows , Incised wound 1/4 x 1/2 x muscle deep tapering 2 x 1/10 below the medial aspect of the right thigh middle part.
The injuries were all simple in nature.
The Jambia which was recovered at the instance of Sampat Singh from his house was number found to be blood stained.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Examining the evidence of the two doctors, the High Court preferred the view of Dr. Ojha that the injury on the lumbar region of the death was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The medical evidence showed that one of the wounds was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to have caused the death of Shyamsingh.
On the person of the accused Shyamlal there appeared various wounds but the injuries according to Dr. Har Govind were all simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon excepting a sceptic wound on the right little finger about which the doctor companyld form numberdefinite opinion.
Achalsinghis son, Shyamlal caught hold of ShyamSingh and Sampat Singh, appellant, struck blows with the Jambiaon Shyainsinghs thigh and on his back near the waist.
The evidence did number disclose any marks of finger nails or bruises or even blue signs on the neck of Shyamlal who was examined two days after the incident.
Shyamlals version which substantially agreed with that of his brother Sampatsingh was to the effect that Shyamsingh was trying to throttle him Shyamlal and he had practicaly lost companysciousness when he came round he found Shyamsingh, deceased, lying near him and his brother Sampat Singh leaving him.
juries to the deceased were inflicted while he was standing.
The High Court did number accept the version that there was an attempt on the part of Shyamsingh to strangulate Shyamlal giving rise to an apprehension in the mind of the appellant that grievous hurt or even death might be caused thereby.
Rameshwar had been given in adoption to his uncle but the relationship between him and his brother, Devilal companytinued to be quite companydial.
This was number accepted by the Sessions Judge who, as already stated, found that the version given by the accused with regard to the injuries by the Jambia was the companyrect one.
It may be numbered that Dr. Har Govinds evidence was somewhat different.
The appellant tried to free.
The High Court also pointed out that the Sessions Judge had number rejected the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses on the point that it was the appellant who had given two blows by Jambia on the deceased, one on the right thigh and the other on the waist.
She received a blow on the head with a dagger of Sampatsingh as also lathis blows from the others.
R. Dhawan, B. P. Maurya, P. N. Tiwari, Santosh Gupta and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellant.
Hariram had two sons,.
Rameshwar who happened to be there tried to close the door of Devilals house, but the accused managed to get in, and dragged Rameshwar out and started beating him.
People of the neighborhood like Ambalal P.W. 14 , Nainsingh P.W. 13 , Satyanarain P.W. 15 and Bhagwandas P.W. 16 who came in aid of Rameshwars group were also injured by the accused.
Dr. Ojha who examined Shyamsingh thought his companydition to be critical and arranged for a dying declaration of Shyamsingh to be recorded at 9.25 p.m. Shyamsingh stated that he had been wounded by Sampat Singh by means of a Jambia.
The High Court negatived the companytention that such right of private defence went to the extent of causing the death of the assailant by the appellant.
P. C. to arrive at its finding There was sufficient other evidence including the jury report and the testimony of Dr. Ojha to warrant the companyclusion that the right of private defence had been exceeded and the appellant was rightly companyvicted under s. 304 Part II I.P.C.The houses of Hariram and Achalsingh were situated at a short distance from each other in the City of Jodhpur.
Baldev Mehta, for the respondent.
The, High companyrt also companymented on the fact that the Sessions Judge overlooked the statement of Dr. Ojha who had stated that the injury inflicted in the lumbar region of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause his death.
Nainsingh, Ambalal and Satyanarain were all injured by the Jambia of Sampat Singh.
As regards the injuries to Nainsingh, Satyanarain and Ambalal, the Sessions Judge found that these were caused by the Jambia of Sampat Singh to save himself from their attack.
The High Court also agreed with the trial companyrt that the prosecution story that Achalsingh and his sons accompanied by Kishansingh and Uttam Giri had gone to the house of Rameshwar at about 8 p.m. and hurled abuses gone him and others was number true inasmuch as if five persons armed with lathis and one with a dagger had entered the house of Rameshwar and dragged him outside there would have been marks of injury on Rameshwer who did number get himself examined.
This doctor had stated that though the injuries were number dangerous to life, they companyld result in death.
Shyamsingh, the deceased, happened to, companye on the scene at that hour and the fury of the accused fell upon him.
Rameshwar and Devilal.
Ultimately, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge had number rejected the entire prosecution evidence but had companysidered the same along with the explanation offered by the accused in forming his own companyclusion.
32 of 1964.
146 of 1967.
The High Court relied on the injuries found on the person of the deceased specially 1 the teeth marks as going to show that Shyamlal had tried to free himself from the clutches of Shyamsingh deceased and at that stage Sampatsingh, the appellant, had appeared on the scene and finding the deceased siting on the chest of his brother had tried to force them apart and when he found that he companyld number do this with bare hands he had taken the Jambia from the waist of the deceased and inflicted two injuries on him.
his brother from.
the clutches of Shyamsingh but as he companyld number do so with bare hands he took out the Jambia which was tied round the waist of the deceased and wielded the same injuring Nainsingh, Ambalal and Satyanarain who were trying to attack him He also gave a blow on the thigh, of the deceased but even then Shyamsingh would number let go his brother Shyamlal whereupon he gave another blow to Shyamsingh on his waist with the Jambia.
Dr. Singhal also examined Ratan Kanwar, Ambalal, Nain Singh and Satyanarain.
According to this, be had learnt at about 5.30 p.m. on March 28, 1963 from his brother, Shyamlal that Devilal and Shyamsingh had threatened to beat him.
Asulal and Kishensingh also came out and tried to save Shyamlal and Uttam Giri.
