IMPORTANT POINT
The manner of causing injuries (assault with chhura on chest of the deceased lady), the number of injuries and its nature inflicted on the deceased when she was thrown on ground by catching her hair on her abdomen and back, the weapon used (big knife) and old enmity and looking to evidence and dying declaration on record the accused was rightly convicted for murder. It cannot be a lessor offence under Section 324 IPC as contended.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Appellant convicted under-Confirmed by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Confined to nature of offence whether under Section 302 or under Section 324 IPC? (the former)-Appeal dismissed-Nature of injuries and time of death after 8 days considered-Eye witnesses, nature of injuries, dying declaration, medical evidence showing it was a murder case-Case law discussed.
Held : Many a times, the nature of the injury inflicted itself presents a most valuable evidence of what the intention was but that is not the only way of gauging intention. Each case must be examined on its merits. Intention being the state of mind of the offender, no direct evidence as a fact can be produced. It has to be gathered from the available evidence and the surrounding circumstances in considering whether the offence is covered by clause I of Section 300 IPC. As far as clause II of the Section 300 is concerned, it is enough if the accused had the intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. Such intention may be inferred not merely from the actual consequences of his act, but from the act itself also. In the case on hand, having regard to the nature of wounds inflicted, it must be deemed that his intention was at least to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The broad facts as deposed by the prosecution witnesses accepted by the trial Court as well as the High Court clearly show that the appellant gave a blow with chhura on the chest of the deceased. When she tried to run away, he caught hold of her hair, threw her on the ground and again assaulted with the chhura on the abdomen and the back of the deceased. This is the manner in which the injuries were inflicted. The injuries inflicted were grievous in nature and dangerous to life which resulted in causing death of the deceased as deposed to by the doctor. The injuries were inflicted by the chhura, a sharp cutting weapon; even an illiterate and ignorant can be presumed to know that an intense assault with such weapon on such vital parts of the body would cause death. In criminal cases, intention or the knowledge under which a person acts is an important consideration. However, the intention being a mental make up or a state of mind of an offender, it is difficult to prove directly as a fact, but is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, in the case on hand, it is not possible to accept the submission that the appellant could be convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. Thus finding no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-This appeal is by the sole accused who was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge. The High Court of Patna dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 239/87(R) by the order dated 15.9.1988 confirming the order of conviction. Hence this appeal by special leave.

2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 14.8.1983 at about 6 A.M. in the morning Savitri Devi, wife of the informant Thakuri Pandit (PW 9) had gone to ease herself towards north of her house. In the meantime, the accused Karu Marik being armed with chhura went there and assaulted with chhura on her chest. She began crying and wanted to run away but the accused caught hold of her hairs, threw her on the ground and started giving chhura blows on her abdomen and back. On raising alarm, her husband (PW 9) and Sita Dhobin (PW 2), Mukesh (PW 1) and others came there. Seeing them, the accused fled away. PW 9 found his wife in a pool of blood lying unconscious. He took her to Sadar Hospital, Giridih, and admitted her. Enmity between the accused and PW 9 was said to be the motive. Furdi bayan of PW 9 was recorded in the hospital by S.I., R.N. Singh. On that basis, FIR was drawn and a case under Section 307 IPC was registered against the accused. On 14.8.1983 itself, her dying declaration was recorded by S.N. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Giridih. Savitri Devi died on 22.8.1983 in the hospital due to the injuries caused to her by the accused. Hence the offence was altered to one under Section 302 IPC. The accused was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and his defence was that he had been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity.

3. The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. PW 1 was declared hostile. Accepting the evidence of PW 2 and PW 9, the eye-witnesses coupled with the dying declaration of the deceased and keeping in view the evidence of the doctor and the Investigating Officer, the trial Court held accused guilty and convicted him for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. On appeal by the accused, the High Court re-appreciated and scrutinized the evidence objectively and appropriately and did not see any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. In that view, upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.

4. Having perused the judgments of both the courts and looked to the evidence placed on record, we are of the opinion that the accused was rightly convicted. It must be stated here itself that this Court on 27.9.1991 issued notice confining it to the nature of offence only. Accordingly, we heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased died in the hospital after eight days of assault; nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased; the weapon used and in the absence of specific evidence of the doctor as to whether any particular injury or injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not justified. According to her, the appellant could be convicted under Section 324 IPC. She pleaded that the appellant had neither intention to cause death of the deceased nor such bodily injury which he knew was likely to cause death. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-State made submissions supporting the impugned judgment. He stated that the trial court as well as the High Court, were right and justified in convicting the accused and sentencing him for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC based on the trustworthy and unshaken evidence of eye-witnesses coupled with the dying declaration. He added that the case of the appellant is covered by Clause II of Section 300; the doctor has clearly stated that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were sufficient to cause deat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 879

Cases Referred (1)