1. Boundary wall dispute leading to assault with an iron pipe and a fatal knife blow to a neighbor — Conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 256
1998(8) Supreme 266
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & V.N. Khare, JJ.
State of Rajasthan -Appellant
versus
Satyanarayan -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1990
Decided on 21-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.S. Bhati, M.K. Singh & S. Bhaumick, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S.M. Jain, Senior Advocate, Sushil K. Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates.
Important Points
Important Point
Where the accused did not really intend to give the fatal blow to the victim with whom he had no enimity and the dispute which occasioned the death was not such which could have prompted accused to cause death accused could be convicted only u/s 304, Part II and not u/s 302.
Where the accused did not really intend to give the fatal blow to the victim with whom he had no enimity and the dispute which occasioned the death was not such which could have prompted accused to cause death accused could be convicted only u/s 304, Part II and not u/s 302.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/304 Part II-Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -Appeal against acquittal-Appreciation of evidence-Charge that on account of previous enimity during altercation accused beat injured witnesses, went back to his house and came out with knife and inflicted blow on stomach of victim consequence of which intestine came out and victim died-Incidence occurred infront of house of accused -Trial Court believing injured witnesses convicted accused u/s 302-High Court believing defence that knife blow was aimed by deceased’s son at accused but it hit victim’s stomach when accused moved away acquitted accused-Evidence of injured eye witnesses did not suffer from any infirmity-Evidence of injured witnesses supported by independent evidence-High Court not justified in setting aside conviction-Evidence showed blow not aimed not at victim against whom accused had no enimity-Dispute was no such which could have prompted accused to cause death-Conviction of trial Court altered into one u/s 304 Part II. (Paras 6 to 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State challenged the acquittal on grounds that the High Court ignored prosecution evidence and failed to provide reasons for accepting the defense version. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Reliable testimony of injured and independent witnesses proves the assault; absence of blood at the scene is explained by traffic and nature of injury. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Lack of intent to kill a specific person and absence of motive to cause death reduces the offense from murder to culpable homicide. (Para 8 )
5. Acquittal set aside — Conviction modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC — Sentence fixed at seven years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. How should the court evaluate the evidence of injured witnesses in a criminal trial?
Evidence of injured witnesses is considered reliable, particularly when corroborated by medical evidence and independent witnesses, and should not be discarded without a valid reason. (Para 6 )
7. Does the absence of blood at the crime scene necessarily invalidate the prosecution's version of a stabbing incident?
No. The absence of blood can be explained by factors such as the location being a public road with high traffic, blood being absorbed by clothing, or internal organs blocking the flow. (Para 7 )
8. Under what circumstances is a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC?
Conviction is modified when evidence indicates the blow was not aimed at a vital part, there was no specific intent to kill the deceased, and no motive to cause their death. (Para 8 )
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 out 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 house 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 with a knife and inflict
