Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. .B
12. Presence of the appellant at the scene of the incidence is beyond any dispute. The autopsy surgeon in his evidence while proving his report, identified three injuries appearing on the person of the deceased. Injury No. 1 was found to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life which was likely to be caused by sharp weapon such as farsa whereas other c injuries which were simple in nature could have been caused by hard and blunt object (may be lathi). He was of the categorical opinion that the injury No. l, in ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death.
13. In cross examination his attention was drawn to the book "Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (22nd Edition). In answer D to a question, he stated: "Linier abrasion can be possible by lathi as well. Volunteers it can also be caused by sharp weapon. If the margin of the wound is sharp, it is inferred that it was caused by sharp weapon."
14. We may notice that it was categorically stated by the said witness that there was no provision for treatment of such injury and such cases are ordinarily referred to neuro surgeon at Ranchi.
15. It appears that on 27.8.1981, a report was sent that deceased F died in Gaya hospital on 1.9 .1981.
16. Our attention has been drawn to one slip attached to the said report wherein a prayer was made for insertion of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in the said case, which reads as under: "In continuation oflnjury Report of Chandra Gorait of Singh Pokhar, Sherghati I have to inform you that he has developed unomiplagia and he left the hospital on 27 .8.1981 without the knowledge of undersigned. He has not submitted x-ray ofright hand till now. This is for information and necessary action." [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. r-
17. Submission of the learned senior counsel Sh. Sushi! Kumar is that the decea~ed left hospital on 27.8.1981 without any information to the doctor therefore, cannot be accepted. The fact that the deceased died in the District Hospital is not in dispute. We have noticed hereinbefore that the Doctor himself suggested that there was no provision for treatment B of such patients at Sherghatti. Evidently, therefore, the relatives of the deceased took him to the Distric.t Hospital for better treatment. For the said purpose, the consent of the doctor might not have been taken or brought to the personal knowledge of the doctor concerned. c
18. It is, however, significant that the aforementioned quotation was made from the purported note made by somebody which formed part of the case diary. The said document was not proved. Attention of the investigating officer was not drawn thereto. No such question appears to have been raised before the High court. We are really at a loss to understand as to how reliance has been placed thereupon on the basis of a piece of paper which appeared in the case diary. We deprecate such a practice. It may be of some interest to notice that Dr. S.P. Gupta has used the word "unomiplagia". We have not been able to find what it means in E the medical dictionary.
19. Deposition of Dr. S.P. Gupta who was examined before the Learned Sessions Judge as PW 10 has not been brought on record by the appellants. The reason therefor appears to us as obvious. Several unsustainable pleas have been raised before the Trial Court on behalf of F the appellant. It appears that at one point of time a plea of insanity has as also his having no relationship with the other accused, had also been taken. It appears from the records that he had also absconded for some time.
20. Submission of Mr. Sushi! Kumar that such an injury can be G caused by hard and blunt substance may be correct in view of the statements made by the autopsy surgeon but merely because there is a possibility in regard thereto, the same by itself cannot be a ground for holding that ocular evidence should be disbelieved. There are a large number of authorities of this Court which clearly show that in certain H situations, the wound produced by a blunt instrument may similarly seem HARIYADAVv. STATE[SINHA,J.] …. to be an incised one. [See Kai/ash v. State of MP, (2006) 9 SCALE A 681].
21. It was not a case where there was a sudden fight. The accused came prepared at the place of occurrence. An altercation might have taken place but not only repeated assaults were made, other witnesses also B suffered injuries.
22. Each case must be decided on its own facts as has been held in Kailash (Supra). The law in this regard was laid down in Kailash (supra) in the c following terms: "In Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab [1958] SCR 1495, wherein Vivian-Bose, J. opined that infliction of one injury by accused may be sufficient to hold him guilty for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code stating: ·y_ In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary to enquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out, or whether he intended to penetrate the liver or the kidneys or the heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could never be convict, for, ifhe does not know that there is a heart or F a kidney or bowels, he cannot be said to have intended to injure them. Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is broad-based and simple and based on commonsense; the kind of enquiry that "twelve good men and true" could readily appreciate and understand. -y To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300. First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; c [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."
23. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal, D which accordingly is dismissed. N.J. Appeal dismissed.