Chhotu vs State Of Haryana

appellant herein. This Court while entertaining the

special leave petition of the appellant, issued notice

confined to the question of the nature of the offence. 2

Dr. Daya Nand (PW-1), who conducted the post-mortem

examination on the body of the deceased Dilbagh has

opined as follows:

"There was no external mark of injuries over the body except a diffused swelling over left temporal region. On cut section of this echymosis was present in the skin and sub- cutaneous tissues. On further dissection on removing the scalp haemotoma was present under the scalp in left temporal, left parietal and right temporal region. After removing this haemotoma skull bone was seen and there was fracture on left temporal bone. Infiltration of the blood was present at the fractured ends. After removing the skull there was extra dural haemotoma was found lying in whole of the temporal region and parietal region of left side."

Admittedly, this was the only one injury found on

the body of the deceased. This injury was attributed to

the appellant.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are

of the considered view that the conviction of the

appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. is inappropriate.

In our considered view, the ends of justice would be met

if the conviction of the appellant is altered from

Section 302/34 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part II of 3

the I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for ten years.

Accordingly the impugned judgment passed by the

High Court is set aside and the appellant is convicted

under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of

accordingly.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi;

November 9, 2009.