Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 375
2001(3) Supreme 186
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
U.C. Banerjee and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Ramashraya and Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-34 of 2000
Decided on 23-2-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advocate. (A.C.).
For the Respondent : Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, and Uma Nath Singh Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In the present case though the quarrel between the accused and deceased ensued after a wordy altercation and weapon was a "lathi" but a series of injuries were caused by the accused on the skull and all over the body of deceased, therefore, appellants have been rightly convicted u/s 302 I.P.C. Section 304 Part II cannot be invoked to reduce the punishment.
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34-Conviction of Appellants under-Murder of Ajeet seen by his son and neighbours-Contention that these witnesses are interested parties and Courts below erred in relying on them-Whether correct? (No).
Held : We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, who contended that these witnesses were interested-witnesses and the courts below erred in placing reliance on these witnesses. We do not find much force in this contention. (Para 3)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34 or 304 part II-Nature of offence whether murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Incident in a field-Accused came in a bullock cart wanted to parts through decead s field-Objected to-Beaten by "lathi"-Died instantaneously-Whether murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder? (The former)-Case Law dismissed.
Held : In all the cases referred to above, the facts and circumstances show that the occurrence took place all of a sudden and there was no pre-meditation on the part of the accused. From the nature of the injury also, it would be observed that the accused had only the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death, but intention as such cannot be attributed to them. The second part of Section 304 speaks of knowledge and does not refer to intention , which has been segregated in the first part. But the knowledge is knowledge of the likelihood of death. In order to bring the offence under clause (3) of Section 300, the prosecution must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present and the nature of injury must be proved. (Para 12)
Argument of the appellants counsel is that the incident happened pursuant to a sudden quarrel and the appellants had no pre-meditation to cause the death of the deceased and therefore, the offence would come under culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 IPC. In order to decide the question, the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the circumstances under which the incident took place are relevant factors. From the nature of the injuries and the origin and genesis of the incident, it could be spelt out that all the ingredients of the offence of murder defined under Section 300 IPC are made out and it is not possible to bring the offence within any of the five exceptions of Section 300 IPC. Therefore, Section 304 IPC cannot be invoked. The argument of the appellants counsel that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased cannot be accepted in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. Though the quarrel between the accused and the deceased ensued after a wordy altercation, a series of injuries were caused by the accused on the skull and all over the body of the deceased. Both the appellants had brutally attacked the deceased. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the circumstances under which the injuries came to be inflicted, it is clearly established that the appellants had the intention to cause the death of the deceased and the injuries caused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellants have been rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC. We see no merit in these appeals, which are dismissed. (Para 14)
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-The appellants herein challenge their conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They were tried by the Fourth Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, alleging that they caused the death of one Ajeet. The prosecution case was that on 19.12.1987 when the deceased Ajeet and his son, Laljee, were doing some work in their paddy field, the appellants came there in their bullock cart. Deceased Ajeet was grazing his buffaloes near his field and a little away, his son Laljee, was collecting bundles of paddy. It seems that the appellants wanted to drive their bullock cart through the Tewda field of the deceased. Deceased Ajeet, objected to this and there ensued a quarrel between Ajeet and the appellants. Appellant Kripa Ram tried to hit the deceased on his head but the blow fell on the shoulder of the deceased. Seeing this, Laljee came near the deceased to save him, but Ajeet shouted, "Run away son, they are waiting for you, do not come this way". According to the prosecution, both the appellant inflicted severe injuries on the deceased Ajeet and he fell down on the ground. Seeing the altercation and beating being given to his father, Laljee ran away and on the way met Hirday Kumar. They returned to the place of incident and saw Ajeet lying dead on the ground. Later, the matter was reported to the Police. The Inquest Report was prepared and the body of Ajeet was subjected to post-mortem. The recovery report was also prepared. Two broken pieces of the tooth of Ajeet were recovered from the place of incident along with blood stained earth and the `lathi alleged to have been used to kill the deceased.
2. PW-1, Laljee; PW-2, Sukalu; and PW-6, Basant are the witnesses who were examined on the prosecution side. PW-1 narrated the whole incident in detail. PW-2 only spoke about the presence of the accused at the place of the incident. PW-6, Basant deposed that he had heard Ajeet shouting that he was being killed and saw the appellants assaulting him with lathi . The evidence of these witnesses was satisfactorily proved by the prosecution.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, who contended that these witnesses were interested-witnesses and the courts below erred in placing reliance on these witnesses. We do not find much force in this contention.
4. The learned counsel further contended that the offence, if at all committed by the appellants, will not come within the definition of murder , but only culpable homicide and the appellants are liable to be punished under Section 304 Part II, IPC. It was urged by learned counsel that there was no pre-meditation and the quarrel took place all of a sudden pursuant to a wordy altercation between the appellants and the deceased and that the appellants had not taken undue advantage of the situation. It was also urged that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death of the deceased. The learned counsel submitted that the circumstances of the case do not also indicate that there was knowledge on the part of the appellants that the injuries caused by them were likely to cause death. Reference was made to a series of decisions by learned counsel for the appellants in support of her contention.
5. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jhaddu & Ors.1, this Court held that there was no intention to kill, but the accused could be imputed with the knowledge that death was the likely result and therefore the conviction of the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC was affirmed. The deceased had sustained injuries on the chest resulting in fracture of ribs and laceration of lungs leading to death. This was on the basis of the nature of injuries that such a finding was recorded.
6. Morcha v. State of Rajasthan2, was a case where the accused husband went to fetch his wife at his in-laws village and on her refusal to accompany him immediately attacked her causing fatal injuries. The trial Court held that the accused had no intention to k
