1. Conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC involving a single stabbing blow to the abdomen from behind. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1272
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : R.P.Sethi
Kunhayippu
Versus
State Of Kerala
Case No. : 326 of 1997
Date of Decision : 10/28/99
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC may be reduced to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II if the circumstances, such as a single blow and prior friendly interaction, indicate a lack of intention to cause death.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 304 Part II - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide - Intention to cause death - Single blow delivered from the back following a friendly interaction - Absence of necessary intention for murder - Conviction modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II. (Para 3)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Non-examination of a material witness - Where the court is satisfied that the witness's whereabouts could not be ascertained, the entire prosecution case cannot be falsified solely on this ground. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing the death of the deceased by delivering a stabbing blow to the abdomen from behind. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses and two corroborating witnesses. A witness who provided the first information report was not examined during the trial. The appellant contended that the lack of intention and the nature of the attack warranted a lesser conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the reliability of the eyewitnesses and determined that the non-examination of the informant witness was not fatal to the prosecution. However, it observed that the parties were in a friendly mood shortly before the incident and only a single blow was delivered, suggesting a lack of intention to murder.
Issues: Whether the non-examination of the informant witness was fatal to the prosecution and whether the act constituted murder under Section 302 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution case is not falsified by the non-examination of a witness if the court is satisfied that the witness could not be located. Additionally, the absence of a clear intention to kill, evidenced by a single blow and a prior friendly interaction, justifies a conviction under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302.
Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction under Section 302 set aside and appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II, sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of eyewitnesses, fatality of non-examination of a key witness, and whether the act constituted murder or a lesser offence. (Para 2 )
3. Non-examination of a witness is not fatal if explained; eyewitness testimony is reliable if not impeached; single blow during friendly interaction suggests lack of murderous intent. (Para 3 )
4. A single blow delivered from behind during a friendly interaction, without evidence of prior intent, may reduce a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 3 )
5. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and modified to Section 304 Part II IPC with imprisonment for five years. (Para 3 )
6. Does the non-examination of a witness who provided the first information report necessarily fatalize the prosecution's case?
No, the prosecution case is not falsified by the non-examination of a witness if the court is satisfied with the reasons for their unavailability and other evidence sufficiently proves the case. (Para 3 )
7. When can the testimony of eyewitnesses be relied upon for conviction despite challenges to their trustworthiness?
Eyewitness testimony can be relied upon if nothing is pointed out during cross-examination to impeach their testimony and the evidence is corroborated by other witnesses. (Para 3 )
8. How does the court determine the lack of intention to murder in a stabbing case?
The court considers the nature of the relationship immediately preceding the act, the number of blows struck, and the circumstances of the attack to determine if the necessary intention for murder was present. (Para 3 )
(1) THE appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC for causing murder of the deceased Abdullakunhi by giving a stabbing blow on his abdomen from his back side on 20-4-1991 at 10 a.m. The accused after giving the blow ran away from the place of occurrence with the knife in his hand and though one Ashok Kumar, who chased to catch hold of him, could not catch hold and gave the first information report at the police station, the said Ashok Kumar has not been examined. The injured was taken to the hospital and at the hospital he succumbed to the injury. The investigating agency started investigation on the basis of the report given by Ashok Kumar and on completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet. On being committed, the accused stood his trial. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all, of whom PWs 1 and 2 are the two eyewitnesses of the occurrence. PWs 3 and 4 also heard the shouting of the deceased and saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence with a knife in his hand. On the basis of the medical evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased met a homicidal death. The said conclusion is not assailed before us. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 as well as the corroboration of PWs 3 and 4 came to the conclusion that the prosecution case that the accused gave the stabbing blow from the back side on the deceased on account of which the deceased died has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment, as already stated. On appeal being carried, the High Court of Kerala has affirmed the conviction and sentence and hence the present appeal.
(2) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the evidence of the two eyewitnesses PWs 1 and 2 cannot be held to be a trustworthy one, and therefore could not have been relied upon by the two courts of fact. She also contended that the non-examination of Ashok Kumar, who could have been a vital witness to unfold the prosecution case, is fatal to the prosecution and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt on that score. Lastly, the counsel argued that even if the prosecution case is believed, then the offence would not be one under Section 302 inasmuch as the accused, who was on friendly terms with the deceased till asking for a glass of juice, suddenly gave one blow and that was from the back side which, of course, ultimately became fatal. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that even if Ashok Kumar has not been examined in the case but the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 cannot be brushed aside lightly and the two courts having believed the same, the conviction is well maintainable. According to the learned counsel for the State, the accused and the deceased belonged to rival unions and possibly on account of that rivalry the accused has committed the murder of the deceased.
(3) HAVING examined the rival contentions and on scrutinising the two judgments and the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, though we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that examination of Ashok Kumar could have unfolded the prosecution case in detail but the impugned judgment of the High Court indicates the reasons as to why Ashok Kumar could not be examined, even though he was to be examined by the Court itself as Witness 1, and according to the impugned judgment, the whereabouts of the said Ashok Kumar could not be found out for which he could not be examined. In this view of the matter, the entire prosecution case cannot be falsified for non-examination of Ashok Kumar. To appreciate the contention as to whether the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 can be believed or not, we have been taken through the same by the learned counsel for the appellant. Nothing has been pointed out also in the cross-examination to impeach their testimony and therefore, in ou
