Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 570
2007(3) Supreme 675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Sheikh Rafi — Appellant
versus
State of A.P. & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5952 of 2006)
Decided on 24-4-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.H. Parekh, Lalit Chauhan, Mrs. Mary Mitzy (for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.), Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. Sneha Bhaskaran and Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Nineteen injuries caused in quick succession by knife where deceased was unarmed would rule out grave and sudden provocation and when attach was indiscriminate including vital parts of body of deceased offence would fall u/s 302 IPC and not u/s 304 Part II IPC.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Appellant in a quarrel with deceased his brother chased him with knife, caught him and inflicted injuries by stabbing indiscriminately — PW1, a constable, witness of incident caught hold of appellant and snatched away knife from his hand — Conviction by trial Court and upheld in appeal by High Court — Appeal — Limited notice in regard to nature of offence — Nineteen injuries were inflicted and different parts of body of deceased the injuries were inflicted showed that knife was used indiscriminately — Injuries were caused on vital parts of body like chest and abdomen — Deceased was unarmed and minor injuries suffered by appellant were not required to be explained — Deceased had quarrelled with his mother PW2 in morning over partition of property could not be relevant to decide nature of offence — Nineteen injuries caused in quick succession could not be said have been caused as a result of sudden and grave provocation — Conviction for offence of murder called for no interference.
Held : Although, in a given case, the number of injuries on the person of the deceased may not be the determinative factor, the same, however, is relevant. 19 injuries have been inflicted by the appellant, as had been found by the autopsy surgeon. (Para 12)
Nature of the injuries and the different parts of the body of the deceased whereupon the same were inflicted in our opinion clearly go to show that the knife was indiscriminately used. Injuries had been caused to vital parts of the body of the deceased namely chest, abdomen. His lung and lever were also damaged. (Para 13)
Apart from the purported quarrel picked up by the deceased with his mother, there is no other immediate provocation which can be said to be the immediate cause leading to the assault. The deceased was chased and the injuries have been inflicted on a main road and that too before a hospital. It was caused in the evening before a large number of persons. He could have been caught and disarmed only by a constable. Evidently others including PW-5 and PW-7 who had been witnessing the occurrence, did not even dare to do so. Nineteen injuries caused in quick succession cannot be said to have been caused as a result of grave and sudden provocation. The very fact that so many injuries were caused in quick succession and particularly where the deceased being unarmed and in a helpless situation, is sufficient to indicate that Sec. 300 “Thirdly” is attracted in this case. (Paras 21 and 22)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. — Leave granted.
2. Appellant herein and the deceased said Shaik Baji were brothers. PW-3 (Abdul Munaff) and PW-4 (Shaik Abdul Ghouse) were also brothers. PW-2 is the mother of the appellant and the deceased. They are resident of village Nandula Peth, in the town of Tenali in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The family was owner of a shopping complex. Deceased was running his pump repairing business in one of the shop rooms situated at the first floor of the said Complex. Deceased was allegedly insisting for partition of the joint property. In the morning of the fateful day i.e. 9.11.1998, he allegedly picked up a quarrel with PW-2 in regard to his share in the property. On refusal to do so, she was allegedly assaulted. A quarrel also allegedly took place by and between the deceased and the appellant at about 5 p.m. on the said day. Appellant chased him with a knife. The deceased ran and came in front of the casualty room of the hospital at Tenali, whereafter Appellant is said to have caught and inflicted injuries by stabbing him indiscriminately.
3. PW-1 (P. Subbarao), a constable working in Pattabipuram Police Station, while going to attend to his duties, found some people gathered on the street, and saw the appellant stabbing the deceased with a knife. A driver attached to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer named Konduri Sridhar (PW-7) also came to the scene of occurrence. PW-1 caught hold of the appellant, and snatched away the knife from his hands. Officers of the Police Station were informed by Sridhar (PW-7) about the incident.
4. The deceased, was treated by the casualty staff of the hospital. However, PW-1 came to learn there about his death about 10 minutes. Thereafter, Shri K. Venkatarao, PW-15, In charge of the Tenali Police Station, thereafter visited the place of occurrence. Appellant was handed over to him and a written complaint was lodged by PW-1. The knife with which the offence was committed was also seized. In regard to the said occurrence, the First Information Report was recorded at about 6.30 p.m.
5. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet and the appellant was ultimately put to trial. He was found to be guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The incident was also witnessed inter alia by PW-5 ( Kota Bosu Babu) and PW-7 (Konduri Sridhar). Their presence at the scene of occurrence and being eye witnesses thereto is not in dispute. Brothers of the appellant as also PW-3 and PW4 and also their mother PW-2, however, did not support the prosecution case, the reason wherefor, is obvious.
7. The High Court also found the appellant guilty of commission of the said offence and dismissed his appeal.
8. This Court had issued a limited notice in regard to the nature of the offence.
9. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellant cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but only under Part-II of Section 304 thereof. Backdrop of the events for the purpose of determining the nature of the offences, it was urged, must be kept in mind and in this behalf emphasis been laid on the fact that the deceased picked up quarrel with his mother in the morning and with the appellant in the evening in regard to partition of the property. It was also pointed out that the deceased was a rowdy element.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, would support the impugned judgment.
11. The short question which arises for consideration before us, therefore, is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant was guilty of commission of an offence only under Part-II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and not Section 302 thereof.
12. Although, in a given case, the number of injuries on the person of the deceased may not be the determinative factor, the same, however, is relevant. 1
