Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1967 Supreme(SC) 326

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Harjinder Singh, Appellant
Versus
Delhi Administration, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1965.
D/- 14-11-1967. 868
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate. (M/s. C. L. Sareen, J. C. Talwar and R. L. Kohli, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate for Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.S.R.CHARI, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.L.SARIN, J.C.TALVAR, R.I.Kohli, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR

To establish murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove, among other things, that the accused had the intention to inflict the particular injury that is proved to be present. However, if the circumstances justify the inference that the accused did not intend to cause the specific injury that resulted in the deceased's death, but had the intention to cause an injury likely to cause death, the offence may fall under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE - INTENTION TO CAUSE INJURY LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH - INFERENCE FROM CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Harjinder Singh, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for stabbing the deceased, Kewal Kumar, with a knife. The appellant and his brother, Amarjit Singh, had a fight with Dalip Kumar, the brother of the deceased. The deceased intervened to rescue his brother, and the appellant stabbed him with a knife. The appellant claimed that he did not intend to kill the deceased and that the offence should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the appellant did not intend to cause the specific injury that resulted in the deceased's death. However, the appellant must have known that striking the deceased with a knife in the abdomen or near it, while the deceased was in a bent position, was likely to result in his death. Therefore, the appellant had the intention to cause an injury likely to cause death, and the offence fell under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: Whether the appellant had the intention to cause the specific injury that resulted in the deceased's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the third ingredient laid down in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495, which requires proof of an intention to inflict the particular injury that is proved to be present, was not satisfied in this case. The circumstances justified the inference that the appellant did not intend to cause an injury on this particular portion of the thigh. However, the appellant must have known that striking the deceased with a knife in the abdomen or near it, while the deceased was in a bent position, was likely to result in his death. Therefore, the appellant had the intention to cause an injury likely to cause death, and the offence fell under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was altered from one under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

Judgement

SIKRI, J :- This appeal by special leave was limited to the question whether the case comes under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution which has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court was, in brief, as follows:

2. On January 31, 1962, at about 2.30 P.M a fight took place between Dalip Kumar P. W. 12 and Harjinder Singh, appellant, near the water tap in front of a tin factory in Zamirwali lane, Delhi. Harjinder was apparently worsted in the fight and he then left the place holding out a threat that he would teach a lesson to Dalip Kumar. The appellant returned with his brother Amarjit Singh to the house of Dalip Kumar and shouted to Dalip Kumar to come out Mst. Tejibai opened the door of the house and asked the appellant and Amarjit Singh to go away, hut either these two or the appellant pulled Dalip Kumar out of the house into the lane and gave him beating near a lamp-post in the corner of Zamirwali lane. At that time the deceased Kewal Kumar who was the brother of Dalip Kumar, came and tried to intervene and rescue his brother. It is at this stage that the evidence is conflicting as to what exactly happened. According to one version. Amarjit Singh accused caught hold of Kewal Kumar and the appellant took out the knife and stabbed the deceased. According to the other version, given by Mohd. Ali, P. W. 5, this is what happened :

"Dalip Kumar s brother holding Jinda accused asked him not to, fight. Jinda at that time took out the knife from his pocket and opened it with both his hands and then gave a blow with it under the belly and the upper portion of the left thigh. Amarjit Singh accused did not do anything."

3. In cross-examination he stated :

"Jinda accused was holding Dalip Kumar from the collar of his shirt by his left hand. At that time Kewal Kumar was on right hand side of Jinda accused. When Jinda took out the knife and opened it with both his hands, Dalip Kumar and his brother Kewal were grappling with Jinda accused Jinda accused gave only one knife blow to Kewal Kumar Kewal Kumar was in bent condition when he was stabbed only once."

After inflicting this injury the appellant ran away.

4. Dr. G. S. Mittal, P. W. 8, noted the following injuries on the person of the deceased :

1 A stab wound 1 x 1/4" x? on left thigh upper and below the inguinal ligament

2. Abrasion 1" x linear on back of left fore-arms middle.

He described the other features of the injuries as follows :

"The direction of the stab wound was oblique and was going medially. Sartorius muscle was cut underneath along with femoral artery and vein. Cut over major part of their diameter. There was effusion of blood in the muscles and around the track over left thigh upper end.... "

He deposed that death was due to shock and haemorrhage from injury to femoral vessels by stab wound of the thigh. He further stated :

"It is correct that femoral artery and vein are important main vessels of the body. The cutting of these vessels would result in great loss of blood. The cutting injuries of these vessels could result in immediate death or after short duration."

5. It was urged before the Sessions Judge on behalf of the appellant that, in the circumstances of the case, the offence, if at all committed, would fall under Sec. 326, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495 held :

"In this, case, the prosecution has proved that the bodily injury, the nature of which has been described above was present. This injury was caused with the pen knife deliberately. It was not accidental or unintentional. Injury of any other kind was not intended. This injury in the opinion of this doctor was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This being so the case 1958 SCR 1495 the would apply and the offence which the accused Jinda has committed falls u/s. -302 Indian Penal Code."

6. The High Court, on appeal, overruled a similar contention in the following words :

"Last

Click Here to Read the rest of this document