1976 Supreme(SC) 342

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
State of A.P. Appellant
Versus
Rayavarapu Punnayya and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1971,
D/- 15-9-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. Parameswara Rao, Sr. Advocate and Mr. G. Narayana Rao, Advocate with him for Appellant; Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocate, for respondents.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 302/34/304 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 107 – Offence of murder - Imprisonment for life – Appeal against conviction - Whether offence disclosed by the facts and circumstances established by prosecution against respondent is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whether a culpable homicide is of gravest medium or lowest degree - Whether offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder on facts of a case it will be convenient for it to approach problem in three stages - Whether accused has done an act by doing which he has caused death of another - There was factions belonging to three major communities was leader of faction while was the leader – Politics were supporting Congress party while were supporters of Party - There was bad blood between the two factions which were proceeded against under Section 107. Criminal Procedure Code - In elections a clash took place between the two parties - A member of faction was murdered - Consequently nine persons belonging to the Reddy faction were prosecuted for that murder - Other incidents also took place in which these warring factions were involved - So much so a punitive police force was stationed in this village to keep the peace during the period from March to September - Deceased person in the instant case was the leader - In order to devise protective measures against the onslaughts of their opponents held a meeting at house of the deceased wherein they resolved to defend themselves against aggressive actions of the respondents and their party-men. PW 1 a member of faction has a cattle shed - Passage to this cattle-shed was blocked by the other party - Deceased took PW 1 to Police Station and got a report lodged there - On July Sub-Inspector of Police came to the village and inspected the disputed wall in the presence of parties - Sub-Inspector went away directing the parties to come to Police Station of the following morning so that a compromise might be effected – Held, Injuries were not on a vital part of the body and no weapon was used which can be described as specially dangerous - Only were used - It cannot therefore be said safely that there was an intention to cause the death within the first clause of Section 300 - At same time it is obvious that his hands and legs were smashed and numerous bruises and lacerated wounds were caused - Number of injuries shows that every one joined in beating him - It is also clear that the assailants aimed at breaking his arms and legs - Looking at the injuries caused in furtherance of the common intention of all it is clear that the injuries intended to be caused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature even if it cannot be said that his death was intended - This is sufficient to bring the case within 3rdly of Section 300 - Here a direct causal connection between the act of accused and the death was established - Injuries were the direct cause of death - No secondary factor such as gangrene tetanus etc supervened - There was no doubt whatever that the beating was premeditated and calculated - Just as in case here also aim of the assailants was to smash the arms and legs of deceased and they succeeded in that design causing no less than nineteen injuries including fractures of most of bones of the legs and arms - While in case the sticks used by the assailants were no specially dangerous in instant case they were unusually heavy lethal weapons - All these acts of accused were pre-planned and intentional which considered objectively in the light of medical evidence were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Mere fact that the beating was designedly confined by assailants to the legs and arms or that none of multiple injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Will not exclude the application of clause 3rdly of Section 300 - Expression bodily injury in clause 3rdly includes also its plural so that clause would cover a case where all the injuries intentionally caused by accused are cumulatively sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature even if none if those injuries individually measures up to such sufficiency - Sufficiency spoken of in this clause as already noticed is high probability of death in ordinary course of nature and if such sufficiency exists and death is caused and the injury causing it is intentional case would fall under Clause 3rdly of Section 300 - All conditions which are a pre-requisite for the applicability of this clause have been established and offence committed by accused in the instant case was murder - Appeal allowed