1. Boundary wall dispute leading to assault with iron pipe and fatal knife blow — conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 98
1998(1) Supreme 433
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
G.T. Nanavati and V.N. Khare, JJ.
State of Rajasthan -Appellant
versus
Satyanarayan -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1990
Decided on 21-1-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.S. Bhati, M.K. Singh, and S. Bhaumick, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S.M. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Sushil K. Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates.
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that where a fatal injury is caused without specific intent to kill the victim, particularly when the blow was aimed at another person, the conviction should be modified from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Trial Court convicted accused for offence-High Court set aside conviction-Appeal-Respondent had inflicted knife blow on abdomen of deceased-Four injured persons and three independent persons were the eye witnesses-High Court found defence version more probable that P.W. 2 had a knife and he tried to inflict blow on appellant who moved and it landed on deceased-High Court did not give reasons for disbelieving prosecution evidence-Incident took place out side the house of appellant and P.Ws-From FIR filed by P.W.2 and evidence of P.W.9 it appeared that respondent aimed blow at P.W.9 but as he moved, it hit deceased-Evidence of injured did not suffer from any infirmity and received corroboration from independent eye witnesses - Merely because no blood was found near the house of respondent, it could not be held that no incident took place there as there were reasons for that-Prosecution established beyond doubt that respondent had given knife blow to deceased-Blow was not aimed on vital part-Dispute was not such which would have prompted accused to cause death of deceased-Conviction was liable to be held u/s 304 Part-I IPC-Sentence of 7 years imprisonment awarded. (Paras 6 to 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State challenged acquittal, arguing the High Court ignored prosecution evidence and failed to provide reasons for accepting the defense version. (Para 5 )
3. Injured and independent witnesses' evidence is reliable; absence of blood at the scene is explained by traffic and nature of injury. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Lack of intent to kill and failure to aim at vital organs justifies conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. (Para 8 )
5. High Court acquittal set aside; respondent convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. How does the court treat the absence of blood at a crime scene in the presence of eye-witness testimony?
The absence of blood at the spot does not negate the incident if the location is a public road with high traffic or if the nature of the injury, such as intestines blocking flow, explains the lack of blood. (Para 7 )
7. Under what circumstances is a conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC?
When the evidence shows the accused did not aim for a vital organ and lacked a motive to cause death, despite the injury being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (Para 8 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of injured eye-witnesses corroborated by independent witnesses?
Evidence from injured witnesses, when corroborated by independent witnesses and medical evidence, is considered reliable and sufficient to establish the occurrence of the incident and the identity of the assailant. (Para 3 , 6 )
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 368/81, the State has filed this appeal. The respondent was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case was that relations between Satyanarayan - the accused and Bhima - his neighbour were not good as they had a dispute with respect to construction of a boundary wall and previously there was some litigation also between the parties. On the day of the incident, that is, on 26.11.80, at about 7.00 a.m., Bhoridevi, wife of Bhima, was sweeping in front of her house. At that time, accused - Satyanarayan was standing near the window on the first floor of his house and spate our water on Bhoridevi. That led to an exchange of words between her and the accused - Satyanarayan. The accused came down and continued quarreling with her. By that time, other inmates of Bhima’s house also came out. The accused then attacked P.W. 2 - Satyanarayan @ Kaliya, a relation of Bhoridevi, with an iron pipe. He also injured Ram Gopal (P.W. 9) and Bhoridevi (P.W. 5) and then went back to his house. Kesar Lal - brother of Bhima, then went near the house of the accused and started questioning the accused as to why he was quarreling like that in the morning. Thereupon, the accused came out of his house with a knife and inflicted a blow on the abdomen of Kesar Lal as a result of which his intestines came out. The accused then ran away from that place. It was the prosecution case that as a result of that injury Kesar Lal died and that during the investigation that knife was discovered by the accused.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined nine eye witnesses, out of whom four were injured during the incident, Out of the remaining eye witnesses - P.W.1 - Sitaram, P.W.4 - Kaluram and P.W. 12 - Rajdevi were the neighbours who had seen the incident. The trial Court accepted the evidence of the injured witnesses as they received corroboration from P.Ws. 1, 4 and 12 against whom nothing could be alleged by the defence. The houses of the accused and Bhima were adjacent to each other and, therefore, presence of the injured witnesses was natural. As it was established that the accused had come out with a knife and given a blow to Kesar Lal the trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Rajasthan High Court. Strangely, without discussing the prosecution evidence, the High Court held that the defence version, that the complainant and his family members had come to his house to attack him, that at that time P.W.2 - Satyanarayan had a knife, that when P.W.2 tried to inflict a blow on him, he moved aside and it landed on Kesar Lal and that Kesar Lal was injured not by him but by his own son - P.W.2 - Satyanarayan, was more probable.
5. The High Court has neither discussed the prosecution evidence nor has it given reasons for disbelieving it and holding that the defence version was more probable. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.
6. As observed earlier, the houses of Bhima and the accused were adjoining and the incident took place infront of their houses. That P.W.2 - Satyanarayan, P.W.5 - Bhoridevi, P.W.9 - Ram Gopal and P.W.11 - Phoolchand were injured during the incident, is proved by their evidence and the evidence of the Doctor who had examined them on that very day. The fact that they were injured ensures that they had seen the incident. They have stated that after causing injuries to them with an iron pipe, the accused had entered his house and closed the door. At that time, Kesar Lal had come there and started complaining as to why the accused was quarreling like that in the morning. The accused came out
