JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. Surjit Singh through present appeal filed by him questions the legality of order dated February 3, 1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, convicting him under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ – and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of three months.
2. Murder of Pritam Singh was reported to the police by Ranjit Singh, who in his statement, made on June 17, 1988 at 8.35 a.m. stated that he was a tailor and on the previous day at about 7 p.m. he had gone to see his sister Sabho, who lived in the riots affected colony. His sister Sabho had gone to village Gopalpur, police Station Rajpura, District Patiala to attend a marriage. Due to late hours at night, he stayed with his brother-in-law (sister’s husband) Pritam Singh. At about 9 p.m., Surjit Singh son of Ishar Singh, who was the brother-in-law (sister’s husband) of his brother-in-law Pritam Singh, came there in a truck. After parking his truck, he came to Pritam Singh who was in a drunken condition and was carrying a bottle of liquor with him. His brother-in-law Pritam Singh and Surjit Singh started consuming liquor in front of the quarter. An electric bulb was burning there and he sat near them. Surjit Singh started abusing his brother-in-law Pritam Singh, who asked him as to why he was abusing him. But Surjit Singh continued to abuse him. Then Pritam Singh got enraged and abused him in return. Surjit Singh became furious and picked up an iron rod lying there and gave a blow with the same on the head of Pritam Singh. He got up and took Surjit Singh in his grip but he managed to break his grip and ran away from the spot together with iron rod. Pritam Singh became unconscious and fell down. He and Chinto wife of Surjit Singh, who was cooking meals in the quarter, got him admitted in Civil Hospital, where the doctor dressed his wounds. After getting his brother-in-law admitted in the hospital, he had gone to his house to inform his brothers and now (sic) the police had reached, when he got recorded his statement.
3. It is made out from the facts of the case that whereas occurrence took place on June 16, 1988 at 9 p.m. FIR was recorded on the next day i.e. June 17,1988 at 8-35 a.m. It was initially recorded under Section 307, IPC but when Pritam Singh died, it was converted to 302, IPC. The special report reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda at 4-05 p.m. on the same day i.e., June 17, 1988.
4. With a view to bring home the offence against the accused, prosecution examined PW 1 Dr. Balbir Singh, who stated that on June 17,1988 he was posted as Emergency Medical Officer, in Civil Hospital, Bhatinda. On that day, Pritam Singh was admitted in the hospital in emergency ward but he expired at 1 l-40a.m. He sent ruqa Ex. PA to the officer incharge of Police Station Civil Lines, Bhatinda. Dr. Avtar Singh Sekhon was examined as PW 2, who stated that on June 17, 1988 at 2-30 a.m. he had medico legally examined Pritam Singh and found following injury on his person :- “Lacerated wound 8 cms x 2 cms x bone deep on the centre of forehead. Wound was starting from the hairlines and extending parietal region right side. Bleeding was present. It was vertically situated”. On June 17,1988 at 7-20 a.m. on the application of ASI Mal Singh the doctor made his endorsement that Pritam Singh was unfit to make statement. He conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pritam Singh on June 18, 1988 at 10 a.m. and found following injury :- “There was stitched wound 8 cm x 1 1/2 cm on the centre of forehead. The wound was starting from hairline and extending upto right parietal region. It was vertically situated. On opening the wound, haematoma under the scalp was seen. Frontal and right parietal bone having linear fracture. Under fractured bones haematoma was present on the membranes. Membranes were ruptured and haematoma was present on brain tissue. Brain membranes were injured. Brain matter was congested. Scalp and skull was injured”. The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor was to be given later after receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, to whom blood samples had been sent for estimation of alcohol concentration in blood. After receipt of report of Chemical Examiner the doctor declared the cause of death of Pritam Singh shock and haemorrhage on account of injury caused to him which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The witness, however, stated in his cross-examination that as the actual cause of death was to be determined the blood was sent to the Chemical Examiner to find out as to whether the cause of death was excessive intake of liquor or it was otherwise and that was the reason why he reserved his opinion about the cause of death till the receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner.
5. The first informant, who happened to be an eye witness, supported the prosecution version. He was examined as PW. 5. There are other witnesses also but there is no need to mention the entire evidence led by the prosecution as the learned defence counsel, Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur has only argued with regard to nature of offence committed by the appellant. Her sole contention is that even if the prosecution version is believed, the appellant herein cannot be pinned down for an offence under Section 302, IPC and at the most he can be held guilty for having committed an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case, and are of the view that there is considerable merit in the only contention raised by the learned defence counsel. The attending circumstances go a long way to show that the deceased and the appellant were related as also that there was no enmity between the two. In fact, they had very cordial relations and on the eventful day as well they were drinking together. In the FIR nothing has been stated with regard to any previous enmity. Even on the date of occurrence as well, nothing substantial happened that might have led to causing of an injury to the deceased. All of a sudden, the accused started abusing Pritam Singh, who heard abuses for sometime but later returned the same which enraged the appellant, who picked up an iron rod lying nearby and caused a single blow to Pritam Singh. The injury sustained by Pritam Singh, even though on the forehead, was described by the doctor to be 8 x 2 cms. x bone deep. The wound was starting from the hairline and extending upto parietal region right side. On opening the wound, haemotoma under scalp was seen. Frontal and right parietal bone was having linear fracture. It is true that the doctor has stated that Pritam Singh died on account of the injury sustained by him which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but it does not appear to us that the appellant had an intention to cause murder or was convinced that in all likelihood the injury given by him would result into death of Pritam Singh. The doctor, in his cross-examination as referred to above, did not immediately give an opinion that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In fact, being wholly unsure of nature of injury being such, he sent the food samples to the Chemical Examiner to find out as to whether the cause of death was excessive intake of liquor or it was otherwise. The doctor clearly states that for that reason he had reserved his opinion. It is, thus, a case of no enmity whatsoever, the quarrel was also very sudden when the deceased also started abusing the appellant. Only one injury was caused which, even though the doctor states, was sufficient to cause death, is not so made out from his cross-examination. We are convinced that offence committed by the appellant does not amount to murder and at the most it amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and falls under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. That being so, we partly accept this appeal and instead hold the appellant guilty under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentence him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for three months.