Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIKRI AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Versus
Ram Prasad
Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1965
Decided On : 04-12-1967
Although clause Fourthly of section 300 of the Penal Code is usually invoked in those cases where there is no intention to cause the death of any particular person, (as the Illustration shows), the clause may on its terms be used in those cases where there is such callousness towards the result and the risk taken is such that it may be stated that the person knows that the act is likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
In the present case, the accused poured kerosene oil upon the clothes of his wife and set fire to those clothes as a result of which she died. It is obvious that such fire spreads rapidly and burns extensively. No special knowledge is needed to know that one may cause death by burning if he sets fire to the clothes of a person. Therefore it is obvious that the accused must have known that he was running the risk of causing the death of his wife or such bodily injury as was likely to cause her death. As he had no excuse for incurring that risk, the offence must be taken to fall within Fourthly of section 300 of the Penal Code. In other words, his offence was culpable homicide amounting to murder even if he did not intend causing the death of his wife. He committed an act so imminently dangerous that it was in all probability likely to cause death or to result in an injury that was likely to cause death. [Para 8
Judgment :-
Hidayatullah, J.
The respondent Ramprasad against whom the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave was tried in the Court of Session under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge under s. 324 of the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The State Government there filed an appeal against his acquittal under s. 302, Indian Penal Code and also 'an application for revision for the enhancement of the sentence passed on him. The High Court convicted him under s. 304 Part II and sentenced him to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment; concurrently the application for revision was dismissed as infructuous. The State Government has now filed this appeal and contends that the conviction of the respondent should have been under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and that there has been failure of justice in the case requiring interference from this Court.
The facts of the case are as follows: Ram Prasad was living with his mistress Mst. Rajji at Mannaur in District Panna. Evidence shows that they were having quarrels for some time previous to the incident which took place on May 24, 1963. On that date, Ram Prasad intended leaving Mannaur for a place called Harsa, because his cattle used to be stolen at Mannaur. Mst. Rajji was unwilling to go with him unless he first reported the matter to the police station house before taking her to Harsa; alternatively, she wanted that he should leave her at Mannaur and give her some cattle for her maintenance. To either course Ram Prasad was unwilling. Matters came to a head on the night of. the 24th when Rain Prasad ordered a van in which he began putting his luggage with a view to leaving for Harsa. Mst. Rajji then went to some of the village panchas and brought them over for intercession. It is these panchas who have now appeared as witnesses to the incident that took place immediately afterwards. To all the panchas Mst. Rajji again narrated the story of her grievance and Ram Prasad insisted on taking her away. As Rain Prasad would not give in, nor would Rajji, the panchas could do nothing further and some of them went away to their lodging which were close to the residence of Ram Prasad. Evidence then shows that Ram Prasad approached Mannulal (P.W.4) with a lantern in one hand and an aluminium bowl in the other. He asked for some kerosene oil, because oil in his lamp had run down, but Mannulal did not give any as he had none to spare. Immediately thereafter Ram Prasad went back to his room and a cry was heard from Mst. Rajji that Ram Prasad had put kerosene oil on her and set her alight. Mannulal, Holke and others immediately arrived on the scene and put out the fire, but before that happened, Mst. Rajii was extensively burnt. She kept on, accusing Ram Prasad with the deed, but Ram Prasad, according to the witnesses, did not say anything in protest. On the other hand, when he was questioned by the panchas as to why he had done so, he retorted that Mst. Rajji was his wife and what had they to do with the matter and added that they might even get him hanged. Mst. Rajji was -then taken on cycle to the police station house although the hospital was on the way. Evidence shows that Mst. Rajji insisted on being taken to the police station house first. There she made the statement which is Ex. P-7, in, which she charged Ram Prasad with her condition and stated also, , that he had put kerosene oil on her and set her clothes on fire. Later she was removed to the hospital where separately to two doctors in attendance (Dr. Mrs. Ghosh and Dr. M. L. Gupta) she again stated that she was burnt by her husband who had put kerosene oil on her. Dr. Ghosh noted on the bed head ticket "homicidal burn by husband'. The next day, Mst. Rajji died Prosecution produced the panchas as witnesses to the earlier transaction in which Mst. Rajji and Ram Prasad had disagreed over going to Harsa and also in proof of the statement of Mst. Rajji that Ram Pra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
