Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JAGDISH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided
28 February 1979
Judges listed
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1979] 3 S.C.R. 428 · 1979 INSC 56
Also cited as
  • AIR 1979 SC 1010 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 ;

p. 429, margin A

1. that the injuries on the person of the accused must be

p. 429, margin G

very serious and severe and not superficial;

p. 429, margin G

2. that it must be shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question, 438 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. no force in this appeal. It is dismissed. N. K. A. Appeal dismissed.

pp. 429–430, margin H