# JAGDISH v. STATE OF RA~STHAN

- **Citation:** [1979] 3 S.C.R. 428
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979-02-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1972
- **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, 0. Chjnnappa Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jagdish-v-state-of-ra-sthan-7628
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Penal Code-Sec. 302-Mutual assault-Injuries 011 the body of deceased
very severe-Injuries on the person of accused superficial--ConJitions requisite
~
to prove mutual assault-What are.
)~
C
The a.ppellant and four other accused who wer·e -.:harged with an offence
D
E
F
G
H
under s. 302 IPC were acquitted of the charge but the appellant alone
vras
convicted and sentenced under s. 304 read with s. 34 IPC. Rejecting the vie\v
of the trial court that since some of the accused had injuries on their bodles
it was a case of mutual assault and that there was no intention to cause muni1!r,
the High Court convicted the appellant under s. 302 IPC and sentenced hirr1 to
life imprisonment.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : The High Court was right in pointing out that th~ findings of the
Sessions Judge were not based on a proper appreciation of evidenc'e, The injuri1:s
on the persons of the accused v.--ere extremely superficial and could be easily explained. The accused had not established that the injuries on their bodies were
sustained in the course of altercation which resulted in the death of the decea:•-
ed, so as to lay the burden on the prosecution to explain the :presence of the
injuries. Before this obligation is placed on the prosecution two conditions must
be satisfied viz., (i) that the ·injuries on the person of the accused were very
serious and severe and not superficial and (ii) that the injuries had been caused
at the time of the occurrence in question.
[429 A-H]
Jn 1he present case neith'er condition is satisfied. The i~1juries were extremely
superficial and there was nothing to show that they were caused during altercation which resulted in the death of the deceasd.
[430 A-Bl

## Text

428
A
JAGDISH
v.
STATE OF RA~STHAN
February 28, 1979
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code-Sec. 302-Mutual assault-Injuries 011 the body of deceased
very severe-Injuries on the person of accused superficial--ConJitions requisite
~
to prove mutual assault-What are.
)~
C
The a.ppellant and four other accused who wer·e -.:harged with an offence
D
E
F
G
H
under s. 302 IPC were acquitted of the charge but the appellant alone
vras
convicted and sentenced under s. 304 read with s. 34 IPC. Rejecting the vie\v
of the trial court that since some of the accused had injuries on their bodles
it was a case of mutual assault and that there was no intention to cause muni1!r,
the High Court convicted the appellant under s. 302 IPC and sentenced hirr1 to
life imprisonment.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : The High Court was right in pointing out that th~ findings of the
Sessions Judge were not based on a proper appreciation of evidenc'e, The injuri1:s
on the persons of the accused v.--ere extremely superficial and could be easily explained. The accused had not established that the injuries on their bodies were
sustained in the course of altercation which resulted in the death of the decea:•-
ed, so as to lay the burden on the prosecution to explain the :presence of the
injuries. Before this obligation is placed on the prosecution two conditions must
be satisfied viz., (i) that the ·injuries on the person of the accused were very
serious and severe and not superficial and (ii) that the injuries had been caused
at the time of the occurrence in question.
[429 A-H]
Jn 1he present case neith'er condition is satisfied. The i~1juries were extremely
superficial and there was nothing to show that they were caused during altercation which resulted in the death of the deceasd.
[430 A-Bl
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 150
of 1972.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3-3-1972 of the Rajasthan
High Court in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 354/69 and S. B. Criminal
Appeal No. 121/69).
L. N. Gupta, (A.C.) for the Appellant.
Sobhagmal lain for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
--
..
-II -- '
JAGDISH v. RAJASTHAN (Fazal Ali, J.)
429
FAzAL ALI, J.-In this appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargennent of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Act, the appellant was convicted along wilh other accused by the Sessions Judge under s. 304
.Pt. 1 read with s. 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to five years R.I.
The State filed an appeal to the High Court against the acquittal of
the appellant under s. 302 I.P.C. and other accused. The High Court
while allowing the appeal of other accused also allowed the appeal of
the State against the appellant Jagdish and set aside his acquittal under
s. 302 I.P .C. and convicted him under s. 302 I.P .C. and sentenced
him to life imprisonment.
We have gone through the judgment of the
High Court which has given cogent reasons for holding that the Trial
Court Judge was absolutely wrong in acquitting the appellant of the
•charge under s. 302 I.P.C. The injuries found on the deceased were
very severe which resulted in fracture of the scalp on the left perietal
bone and also a fracture of the temporal bone. These were the
two
injuries which according to the prosecution were the cause of the
-death of the deceased Jairam.
The Sessions Judge was of the opinion
that as some of the accused persons had also injuries it was a case of
mutual assault and therefore, there was no intention to cause murder.
The High Court has rightly pointed out that the findings of the Ses-
·sions Judge arc 'not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.
It is true that the accused had some injuries on their persons.
The
injuries on their persons were extremely superficial
and could be
easily explained.
As regards Nanda, it is true that he had five injuries
out of which two are contused wounds. It was the evidence of D.W.
1 that he examined the injuries on 25-6-67.i.e. two to four days after
the occurence. It has not been proved that all the injuries sustained
by him were sustained in the course of altercation which resulted in
the death of the deceased, so as to lay the burden on the prosecution
to explain the presence of these injuries.
Even the contusions
are
not of serious nature. It is true that where serious injuries are found
on the person of the accused, as a principle of appreciation of evidence,
it becomes obligatory on the prosecution to explain the injuries, so as
to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence
originated.
But before this obligation is placed on the prosecution,
two conditions must be satisfied ;
1. that the injuries on the person of the accused must be
very serious and severe and not superficial;
2. that it must be shown that these injuries must have been
caused at the time of the occurrence in question,
A
B
c
D
F
F
G
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
In the instant case, none of these conditions are satisfied. The injuries.
are extremely superficial and there is nothing to show that they were
caused during the altercation which resulted in the death of the deceased. Having regard, therefore, to the ~ircumstances of the case,
we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the
High Court in convicting the appellant under s. 302 I.P.C. We find.
B
no force in this appeal. It is dismissed.
N. K. A.
Appeal dismissed.
i
'
)