Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PIRTHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/10/1993
BENCH:
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 AIR 1582 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 498
JT 1993 Supl. 143 1993 SCALE (4)35
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.- Special leave granted.
2. The appellant was tried for an offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC and has been ultimately found guilty under
Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo four years’
RI and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 in default of payment of
which to further undergo one year’s RI.
3. The facts of the prosecution case are that on April 2,
1986 at about 2 p.m. the appellant came in front of the
house of Jia Lal, deceased and there was a quarrel and the
appellant kicked the deceased on his testicles as a result
of which the deceased fell down. The appellant again kicked
on the testicles of the deceased. The wife and daughter of
the deceased intervened and they removed the injured to the
house and later he was shifted to the hospital only on April
4, 1986. The doctor found a diffused swelling on the
scrotum and penis and skin over the scrotum and penis was
found to be blackening and gangrenous and he was treated in
the hospital. Because of the gangrene the deceased died on
April 5, 1986. A case was registered under Section 302 IPC.
Dr Naveen Sabharwal, PW 8 conducted the postmortem and he
opined that the death was due to toxemia because of the
gangrene which could be the result of the injury to the
testicles. PW 6, another doctor again gave a medical
opinion that the duration between injury and the death could
not be given because the cause of death was toxemia due to
gangrene. The doctor also admitted that because of the lack
of immediate medical help, the gangrene developed.
4. Both the courts below have accepted the prosecution
case that the appellant kicked the deceased on the
testicles. The High Court held that by giving such kicks,
the appellant had knowledge that he was likely to cause the
death and accordingly convicted him under Section 304 Part
II IPC.
5. Having regard to the medical opinion, admittedly the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
injury to the testicles was not the direct cause of death.
No treatment was given for two days and it is only on April
4, 1986 that the deceased was admitted in the hospital. but,
unfortunately, in the meanwhile gangrene developed. Under
the circumstances the offence only amounts to one punishable
under Section 323 PC. In the result, the conviction of the
appellant under Section 304 Part 11 IPC and the sentence of
four years’ RI awarded thereunder are set aside. Instead he
as convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo
seven months’ RI. the sentence of fine with default clause
and the direction that the whole amount should be paid to
the heirs of the deceased, are confirmed. Subject to the
above modification of sentence, the appeal is disposed of.
500