2007 Supreme(SC) 1611

2007(8) Supreme 417
Supreme Court of india
C.K. Thakker & J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Chinnathaman — Petitioner
versus
State rep. By Inspector of Police — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2006
Decided on : 13-12-2007

Important Point
Where Deceased had offered grave and sudden provocation to appellant as a result of which appellant, in heat of moment had delivered a blow with sickle to deceased, conviction of appellant was altered from one under Section 302 IPC to one punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 – Prosecution of appellant for causing death of deceased by assaulting on his neck by means of a sickle – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal there against - Testimony of eye-witness “S” and “T” indicated that on day of incident Appellant inflicted injuries on deceased - Nothing substantial could be brought on record in cross-examination of “S” and “T” which would cast a doubt on his assertion that appellant was author of injuries sustained by deceased - From evidence led by prosecution it was evident that deceased, in company of witness “S” had gone to field of appellant to get bitterguard in spite of knowing that appellant was nurturing a feeling that deceased and his own sisters son had facilitated elopement of “P” with her teacher - Testimony of father of deceased established that his deceased son, in company of witness “S” Kumar had stayed in field of appellant for about 15 minutes and that there was an altercation between appellant and deceased - Appellant never knew and anticipated that deceased would enter his field nor had prepared himself in advance to attack deceased – Hence, there was no premeditation or pre-plan on part of appellant, to cause death of deceased – No case of prosecution that on seeing that deceased was entering his field in company of “S” appellant had straightway attacked him - Evidence led by prosecution clearly established that after verbal duel, which had lasted for pretty long time, appellant had picked up a sickle which is an agricultural implement, lying on ground and delivered a blow on neck of deceased - Deceased had offered grave and sudden provocation to appellant as a result of which appellant, in heat of moment had delivered a blow with sickle to deceased – No case of prosecution that appellant had acted cruelly, in sense that he had delivered successive blows to deceased - There was sufficient time and opportunity to appellant to give repeated blows – No case of prosecution that appellant wanted to deliver other blows and that he was prevented from doing so, by any person - Nothing on record to indicate that appellant had committed culpable homicide amounting to murder by causing death of deceased with intention of causing death of deceased or of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death – Hence provisions of Part II of Section 304 IPC held applicable to facts of case - Appeal allowed by converting conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC to one punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

       Facts of the case :

       Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by assaulting on his neck by means of a sickle. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence. On Appeal there against High Court confirmed the conviction.

       Present Appeal has been filed against said order of conviction.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that testimony of eye-witness “S” and “T” indicated that on day of incident appellant inflicted injuries on deceased. Nothing substantial could be brought on record in cross-examination of “S” and “T” which would cast a doubt on his assertion that appellant was author of injuries sustained by deceased. From evidence led by prosecution it was evident that deceased, in company of witness “S” had gone to field of appellant to get bitterguard in spite of knowing that appellant was nurturing a feeling that deceased and his own sisters son had facilitated elopement of “P” with her teacher. Testimony of father of deceased established that his deceased son, in company of witness “S” Kumar had stayed in field of appellant for about 15 minutes and that there was an altercation between appellant and deceased. Appellant never knew and anticipated that deceased would enter his field nor had prepared himself in advance to attack deceased. Hence, there was no premeditation or pre-plan on part of appellant, to cause death of deceased. No case of prosecution that on seeing that deceased was entering his field in company of “S” appellant had straightway attacked him. Evidence led by prosecution clearly established that after verbal duel, which had lasted for pretty long time, appellant had picked up a sickle which is an agricultural implement, lying on ground and delivered a blow on neck of deceased. Deceased had offered grave and sudden provocation to appellant as a result of which appellant, in heat of moment had delivered a blow with sickle to deceased. No case of prosecution that appellant had acted cruelly, in sense that he had delivered successive blows to deceased. There was sufficient time and opportunity to appellant to give repeated blows. No case of prosecution that appellant wanted to deliver other blows and that he was prevented from doing so, by any person. Nothing on record to indicate that appellant had committed culpable homicide amounting to murder by causing death of deceased with intention of causing death of deceased or of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death. Hence provisions of Part II of Section 304 IPC held applicable to facts of case. Appeal allowed by converting conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC to one punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.