1. Assault with deadly weapons resulting in death — Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC by High Court — Appeal against modification. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 67
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Sudhir Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 6970 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.4139-4140 of 2017)
Decided on : 14-01-2019
IMPORTANT POINT
It is the intention of the accused to commit murder that attracts section 302 IPC.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Medical records revealing eight injuries on the body of the deceased, out of which three injuries were on his head – Weapons used, situs of injuries and the force with which of assaulted – Showing clear intention of the accused to commit murder – Conviction u/s 302 by trial court affirmed. (Para 9)
(2002) 6 SCC 506 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
These appeals question the judgment of the High Court modifying the conviction of Surender @ Monu (Respondent No.2) from Section 302, IPC to that under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. These appeals have also questioned the reduction of sentence imposed on the other accused to the period already undergone for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 148 read with 149 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
Trial court rightly convicted accused Surender @ Monu u/s 302 IPC.
Result: Order of High Court as regards the accused Surender @ Monu reversed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC should be restored after the High Court modified it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Medical evidence and the nature of head injuries inflicted with an iron rod demonstrate a clear intention to commit murder, not culpable homicide. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Intention to murder is established when the weapon used, the situs of the injury, and the force applied are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction modified from Section 304 Part-I to Section 302 IPC — Accused sentenced to life imprisonment and fine. (Para 10 )
6. Does the fact that an accused assaulted the deceased only once or twice on the head preclude a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC?
No. If the incident did not occur on the spur of the moment and the act does not fall within the exceptions to Section 300 IPC, a limited number of blows does not automatically reduce the offence to culpable homicide. (Para 8 )
7. How is the intention to commit murder inferred from the nature of injuries?
Intention is inferred from the type of weapon used, the situs of the injuries (such as the head), and the force applied, particularly when the injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 6 , 9 )
8. Can a solitary injury be sufficient to establish a conviction for murder?
Yes, if the injury is inflicted with a deadly weapon and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, such as by rupturing important blood vessels, it indicates an intention to murder. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are presented before us, questioning the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, modifying the conviction of Surender @ Monu (Respondent No.2) from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’), to that under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. These appeals have also questioned the reduction of sentence imposed on the other accused to the period already undergone for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 148 read with 149 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, an altercation took place between the complainant’s mother, Ramrati and his aunt, Sarli at about 5.00 p.m. on 13.03.2008. On the same day, the accused started pelting bricks and stones upon the house of the complainant showing solidarity with Sarli. However, the complainant and other family members remained inside their house out of fear. On the next day, i.e., 14.03.2008, complainant’s mother Ramrati went to fetch water at about 2.00 p.m., and at that time, Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were sitting there and they started threatening Ramrati with dire consequences. Subsequently, Accused Nos. 1 to 9 carrying deadly weapons like, jellies and iron rods approached the shop of the complainant’s brother, Satish and threatened him also. Consequently, Satish fled from the scene. Thereafter, all the accused came to the house of the complainant and attacked the complainant’s father, Balwan Singh. The complainant and his cousin were also injured in this altercation.
4. The Trial Court convicted Surender @ Monu (Respondent No. 2) son of Ved Parkash (Respondent No. 3) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 148, 323, 506 read with 149 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and to undergo imprisonment for other offences also. All other accused were convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 148 read with 149 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year under Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC. Sentence of fine was also imposed on them. As mentioned supra, the High Court reduced the conviction of Surender @ Monu (Respondent No.2) for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. As far as the other accused are concerned, the High Court maintained their conviction and but reduced the sentences to the period already undergone by them. Hence, these appeals are filed by the complainant.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, and having perused the records, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court so far as Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 are concerned, inasmuch as the High Court, while affirming the conviction of these accused, used its discretion judiciously to sentence these accused for the period already undergone in jail. So far as Respondent No.2, Surender @ Monu is concerned, there is enough material and medical evidence placed on record to infer that the death had occurred due to the grievous injuries inflicted by Respondent No.2 upon the deceased.
6. Both the courts below have concurrently concluded, and rightly so, that Surender @ Monu alone assaulted the deceased, particularly on his head, with the iron rod. There is no reason to disbelieve the said fact, nor the finding of fact. It is concluded by the courts below that due to the injuries sustained by the deceased on his head, dealt by Surender @ Monu, the deceased had lost his life. However, in our considered opinion, the High Court is not justified in modifying the conviction of the accused, Surender @ Monu to the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC inasmuch as the facts clearly reveal the intention
