1. Monetary dispute — Throwing of burning stove causing death — Offence under Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 499
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T. NANAVATI AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Hari Shankar, Appellan
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1998 (arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 3845 of 1997), D/- 20-4-1998.
Important Points
The legal principle established is that a rash and negligent act, if likely to cause death, can lead to conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC for manslaughter.
Subject
Criminal Law - Manslaughter
Act Referred
Headnote
Manslaughter - Appellant's Rash and Negligent Act Resulting in Death
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, in a sudden quarrel, threw a burning kerosene wick-stove at the deceased during an exchange of words, causing the deceased to catch fire and ultimately die from the burns.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's act, though not premeditated, was likely to cause burns resulting in death, leading to the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the nature of the offence committed by the appellant based on the facts found by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's act of throwing a burning stove, knowing it was likely to cause burns resulting in death, constituted an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC and reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Absence of intention to kill — Lack of enmity — Act characterized as rash and negligent. (Para 3 )
3. Act of throwing a burning stove implies knowledge of likelihood of causing burns resulting in death. (Para 3 )
4. Knowledge that an act is likely to cause death — Application of Section 304 Part II, IPC. (Para 3 )
5. Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II, IPC — Sentence reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 4 )
6. When is an act classified under Section 304 Part II of the IPC instead of Section 302?
An act is classified under Section 304 Part II when it is committed with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the specific intention to kill. (Para 3 )
7. Does throwing a burning stove on a person constitute a rash and negligent act?
No, such an act is considered to be committed with the knowledge that it is likely to cause burns resulting in death, thereby constituting an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. (Para 3 )
8. How does the court evaluate the intention to kill in the context of a sudden quarrel?
The court evaluates whether the nature of the act performed indicates knowledge that the action was likely to cause death, regardless of the suddenness of the quarrel or lack of prior enmity. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT :- Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Only question that we have to consider in this appeal is what offence can be said to have been committed by the appellant on the basis of the facts found by the High Court. It has been held that while the appellant, deceased Bheem Singh and one Shah Megan were taking tea in the tea-club of the Air Force, 32 Wing (MT Section) an exchange of words took place between the appellant and the deceased on account of the demand made by the appellant for returning Rs. 50,000/- which he had advanced to the deceased. The appellant became angry and picked up the burning kerosene wick-stove and threw it on the deceased. Kerosene from the stove spilled over the clothes of the deceased and as the burning wicks came in contact with his clothes they caught fire. The deceased ultimately died as a result of the burns received by him.
3. What was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant had no enmity with the deceased. He had no intention to 2630 kill the deceased as by killing him he could not have recovered the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which he had advanced to the deceased. He further submitted that the quarrel between the two took place all of a sudden and in the heat of the moment the appellant had picked the stove and had thrown it towards the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that it was merely a rash and negligent act on the part of the appellant. We cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel. Since the appellant had thrown a burning stove on the deceased he would have known that his act was likely to cause burns resulting in death. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case he can be said to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
4. We, therefore, allow this appeal partly, alter the conviction of the appellant from under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC and reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
Appeal partly allowed.
