Conviction under Section 304 Part II/34 upheld where injured testimony was medically corroborated.

On 16 April 1996, a quarrel occurred between Kamal/Kamlesh Yadav and appellant Rajendra Yadav. Following the quarrel, Rajendra allegedly returned with the other accused, who assaulted Santu Yadav and his uncle Jhari Yadav with lathis. Jhari sustained serious head injuries and Santu also suffered injuries. Jhari was initially treated at Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj, and was thereafter referred to Ranchi, where he died approximately ten days after the assault

The post-mortem disclosed a skull fracture, brain contusion and subdural bleeding, and the medical opinion attributed death to head injury. Following investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 304/34 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 304 Part II/34, 323 and 341 IPC and imposed concurrent sentences, including seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC.

During the appeals, appellant Kamraj Yadav died and his appeal abated.

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304 Part II/34, 323 and 341 IPC was sustainable on the prosecution evidence.

Whether the delay of approximately ten days between the assault and Jhari Yadav’s death, together with the alleged contradictions and absence of detailed treatment evidence, created reasonable doubt regarding causation and entitled the appellants to acquittal.

Whether the trial court’s judgment disclosed any serious error of law warranting appellate interference.

The Court applied Sections 304 Part II and 34 IPC, which respectively concern culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the accused has knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, and liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention. Sections 323 and 341 IPC govern voluntarily causing hurt and wrongful restraint, respectively.

The Court relied on the principle that credible testimony of an injured witness may be acted upon, particularly when corroborated by other eyewitnesses and medical evidence.

It further applied the causation principle that a subsequent death does not break the chain of liability where the evidence establishes that death resulted from injuries inflicted during the occurrence and no intervening cause is proved.

The Court found P.W.-8, Santu Yadav, to be an injured eyewitness whose account consistently attributed the assault to the appellants. His testimony was corroborated by P.Ws.-2, 7, 10 and 11, and by the medical evidence showing multiple scalp injuries on Jhari and injuries on Santu.

The post-mortem evidence established a parietal-bone fracture, brain contusion and subdural bleeding, with death expressly attributed to head injury.

The Court held that the ten-day interval before death did not create reasonable doubt because no intervening cause was shown and the medical evidence connected the death to the assault-related head injury.

It further held that the use of lathis and repeated blows on the vital part of the body established the requisite knowledge for Section 304 Part II IPC, while the injuries to Santu and the evidence of interception and assault supported the convictions under Sections 323 and 341 IPC.

The appellants’ arguments concerning interested witnesses, contradictions and incomplete treatment evidence were therefore rejected.

The appeals were dismissed and the trial court’s convictions and concurrent sentences were affirmed.

Since the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled, and they were directed to surrender before the trial court within two months to undergo the remaining sentence; failing surrender, coercive steps were directed to be taken for their arrest and detention.