1. Assault by multiple accused resulting in death — Convictions under Sections 302, 307, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1110
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : M.K.Mukherjee
Jagtarsingh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 73 of 1997
Date of Decision : 11/6/98
Advocates Appeared: Gujral M.S. : Mishra R.C. : Mishra T.P. : Singh Kuldip : Sodhi R.S.
Important Points
Death caused by septicemia resulting from a fatal injury constitutes murder if the injury was intended and sufficient to cause death. Participation in a joint assault does not automatically establish common intention to murder if the specific act indicates an intent only to cause grievous hurt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Offences Against Human Body
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 300, 302, 307, 326 and 34 - Culpable homicide and murder - Death caused by septicemia resulting from a head injury - If the injury was intended and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it constitutes murder, even if death occurs later due to septicemia. (Para 7)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 34 - Common intention - Participation in an assault with deadly weapons does not necessarily imply a common intention to commit murder if the nature of the assault by a specific accused (e.g., blow to the ankle) indicates an intention only to cause grievous hurt. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Four accused persons attacked three individuals with deadly weapons. One victim succumbed to injuries 16 days later. The trial court convicted one accused for murder and others for lesser offences. The High Court modified these findings, convicting two accused for murder under the principle of common intention, while acquitting the others. The appellants challenged these convictions before the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The medical evidence established that the death was caused by septicemia resulting from a head injury that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, regarding the common intention to murder, the evidence showed that one of the appellants assaulted the deceased on the ankle, which indicated an intention to cause grievous hurt rather than death.
Issues: Whether death resulting from septicemia caused by a head injury constitutes murder and whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit murder under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: Death resulting from septicemia caused by a fatal injury is murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Common intention under Section 34 is not established if the specific act of the accused demonstrates an intent to cause grievous hurt rather than death, despite participating in a joint assault.
Result: Conviction and sentence of one appellant under Section 302 IPC and another under Sections 307 and 326 IPC upheld; other convictions set aside.
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 34 - Common intention - Participation in an assault with deadly weapons does not necessarily imply a common intention to commit murder if the nature of the assault by a specific accused (e.g., blow to the ankle) indicates an intention only to cause grievous hurt. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Four accused persons attacked three individuals with deadly weapons. One victim succumbed to injuries 16 days later. The trial court convicted one accused for murder and others for lesser offences. The High Court modified these findings, convicting two accused for murder under the principle of common intention, while acquitting the others. The appellants challenged these convictions before the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The medical evidence established that the death was caused by septicemia resulting from a head injury that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, regarding the common intention to murder, the evidence showed that one of the appellants assaulted the deceased on the ankle, which indicated an intention to cause grievous hurt rather than death.
Issues: Whether death resulting from septicemia caused by a head injury constitutes murder and whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit murder under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: Death resulting from septicemia caused by a fatal injury is murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Common intention under Section 34 is not established if the specific act of the accused demonstrates an intent to cause grievous hurt rather than death, despite participating in a joint assault.
Result: Conviction and sentence of one appellant under Section 302 IPC and another under Sections 307 and 326 IPC upheld; other convictions set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether death resulted from septicemia rather than injuries and whether common intention to murder existed among all assailants under Section 34, Indian Penal Code. (Para 6 )
3. Septicemia resulting from a fatal head injury constitutes homicidal death; common intention for murder is not established if the nature of the assault suggests only intent to cause grievous hurt. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Death caused by septicemia arising from a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death constitutes murder under Section 300, Indian Penal Code. (Para 7 )
5. Conviction of one appellant under Section 302 and another under Sections 307 and 326 upheld; other convictions set aside. (Para 9 )
6. Does death caused by septicemia preclude a conviction for murder if the septicemia resulted from a fatal injury?
No. If the septicemia is a direct result of a head injury that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it is considered a homicidal death under the law. (Para 7 )
7. When is common intention to murder not established despite multiple assailants attacking together?
Common intention to murder is not established if the specific nature of an assailant's actions, such as striking a victim on the ankle, indicates an intent to cause grievous hurt rather than death. (Para 8 )
8. Can a court sustain convictions for offences not specifically challenged in a State appeal or revision petition?
No. If the State's appeal and the revision petition are limited to specific charges, such as the acquittal of accused persons under Section 302/34, the court cannot sustain convictions for other offences outside that limited scope. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.
(1) JAGTAR Singh and Harbans Singh, the appellants herein, along with their another brother, Makhan Singh and father, Bhura Singh were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge of Bhatinda for committing murder and other cognate offences in furtherance of their common intention. The trial ended in the conviction of Harbans Singh under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, Jagtar Singh under S. 307 and 326 Indian Penal Code, Makhan Singh under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and Bhura Singh under Section 323 Indian Penal Code (two counts). Assailing their convictions, they preferred an appeal before the High court; and the respondent-State, in its turn, filed an appeal against the acquittal of Bhura Singh, Jagtar Singh and Makhan Singh of the charge of murdeR.One of the injured, namely, Nidharak Singh also filed a revision petition against the above acquittal. By a common judgment, the High court disposed of the appeals and the revision petition by upholding the convictions of the appellants as recorded by the trial court, further convicting the appellant, Jagtar Singh under S. 302/34 Indian Penal Code and Harbans Singh under S. 307/34 and 326/34 Indian Penal Code and acquitting the other two accused persons. Hence this appeal.
(2) THE prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:
(A) In the morning of 23/9/1991, Naib Singh (the deceased) and his son, Nachhattar Singh (Public witness 3 had gone to Jaitu Mandi for selling cattle. On that night, at or about 9.00 p.m., Nidharak Singh (Public witness 2 and his uncle, Ajaib Singh (brother of Naib Singh) went to the house of Naib Singh, to enquire whether they had returned from the Mandi. Reaching there, they found them standing outside their house. A little later, the four accused persons came there armed with deadly weapons and started assaulting them. Jagtar Singh first gave a blow on the head of Nachhattar Singh with a khapra, as a result of which he fell down. Bhura Singh then gave him a kassauli blow and Harbans Singh a gandasa blow on the left side of the head of Naib Singh, who also fell down. When Nidharak Singh and Ajaib Singh tried to separate them, Jagtar Singh gave one khapra blow to Naib Singh near his left ankle and Bhura Singh gave a kassauli blow to Naib Singh on his left thigh. Then, Makhan Singh gave a blow with a sela on his left ankle and another blow on his left thigh. When Ajaib Singh raised alarms, the four accused persons ran away from the spot. The motive ascribed for the assault was a dispute between the parties over a khal (watercourse) for which proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against both of them.
(B) Ajaib Singh and Gurdev Singh (another brother of Naib Singh) took the three injured to Primary Health Centre, Goniana in a tractor- trolley where Dr P.C. Singal (Public witness 7 examined them; and then sent a ruqa to Nahianwala Police Station. On receipt thereof, ASI Tarsern Chand (Public witness 5 came to the Health Centre and recorded the statement of Nidharak Singh (Public witness 2. On that statement, a case was registered and investigation taken up. In the meantime, Naib Singh had been forwarded to PGI Hospital at Chandigarh for better treatment where he succumbed to his injuries on 9/10/1991.
(C) On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge- sheet against the four accused persons and in due course, the case was committed to the court of Session.
(3) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and contended that they had been falsely implicated.
(4) IN support of their respective cases, the prosecution examined ten witnesses of whom PWs 2 and 3 figured as eyewitnesses, and the defence,two.
(5) IN the context of the unimpeachable and unimpeached evidence adduced by the doctors to prove that Naib Singh met with a homicidal death and PWs 2 and 3 sustained grievous injuries caused by instruments for
