1. Appeal against High Court order altering convictions for offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, and 323/149 of the IPC. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 623
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Kalicharan & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1411 of 2013
Decided on : 31-05-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Even a single blow but on vital part of the body of deceased makes the accused liable for conviction u/s 304 Part I.
Even a single blow but on vital part of the body of deceased makes the accused liable for conviction u/s 304 Part I.
Subject
Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302/149 and 325/149 - Free fight - Considering the role attributed to the accused High Court rightly acquitted 8 of them. (Para 2)
(2002) 7 SCC 152 - Relied upon
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/149, 304 Part I and II - Free fight - Accused inflicting single blow on head of deceased - High Court convicting him u/s 304 Part II on account of single blow - But the single blow was inflicted on vital part of the body, head - Conviction converted to one u/s 304 Part I. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The trial Court convicted the respondent-original accused along with others for commission of the offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 of the IPC.
High Court has partly allowed the appeal and altered the conviction of the accused-Ramavtar from Section 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced him to five years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5000/- and set aside his conviction for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC; altered the conviction of the accused-Kalicharan to offences under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone; set aside the conviction of the accused-Amar Singh, Kedar, Abhilakh and Ramgopal under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149 and 323/149 of the IPC and acquitted them from the charges levelled against them; set aside the conviction of the accused-Tejsingh, Gangaram and Vedari under Sections 148, 302/149 and 325/149 of the IPC and convicted them for commission of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by them.
Finding of the Court:
Accused-Ramavtar is liable to be convicted u/s 304 Part I.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the State :Mr. R.K. Rathore, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Parashar, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. Md. Farman, Advocate.
For the State :Mr. R.K. Rathore, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Parashar, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. Md. Farman, Advocate.
Table of Contents
2. State challenges the High Court's decision to acquit several accused and reduce the conviction of the primary accused from Section 302/149 to Section 304 Part II. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. The court found that while a free fight mitigates liability for some, a fatal blow to a vital organ necessitates a conviction for culpable homicide. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. A single blow to a vital organ can constitute murder, but in a free fight, it may be categorized as culpable homicide under Section 304. (Para 3 )
5. How does the occurrence of a free fight affect the conviction of accused persons in violent crimes?
In cases of a free fight, the court considers the specific role attributed to each accused to determine whether they are liable for murder or lesser offences. (Para 2 )
6. Can a single blow to a vital part of the body lead to a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC?
Yes, even a single blow, if delivered to a vital part of the body such as the head, can result in a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. (Para 3 )
7. When is a conviction altered from Section 304 Part II to Section 304 Part I in the context of a fatal injury?
When the accused causes a fatal injury to a vital part of the body using a weapon, and the circumstances, such as a free fight, preclude murder but indicate knowledge that the act could cause death. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Judicature at Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1997 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the original accused and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.01.1997 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the respondent-original accused for commission of the offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 of the IPC and altered the conviction of the accused-Ramavtar from Section 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced him to five years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5000/- and set aside his conviction for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC; altered the conviction of the accused-Kalicharan to offences under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone; set aside the conviction of the accused-Amar Singh, Kedar, Abhilakh and Ramgopal under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149 and 323/149 of the IPC and acquitted them from the charges levelled against them; set aside the conviction of the accused-Tejsingh, Gangaram and Vedari under Sections 148, 302/149 and 325/149 of the IPC and convicted them for commission of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by them, the State has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the findings recorded by the High Court and considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, insofar as accused Kalicharan, Amar Singh, Kedar, Abhilakh, Ramgopal, Tejsingh, Gangaram and Vedari are concerned, is not required to be interfered with. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that there was a free fight and the role attributed to the aforesaid accused, the High Court has rightly acquitted the aforesaid accused for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 325/149 of the IPC. The same is absolutely in consonance with the decision of this Court in the case of Kanwarlal v. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 152. Therefore, the present appeal qua the aforesaid accused (except the accused-Ramavtar) deserves to be dismissed.
3. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court altering the conviction of the accused-Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC is concerned, it is required to be noted that the fatal blow was caused by the said accused-Ramavtar. The deceased Kalyan sustained the injury on his head which was caused by the accused Ramavtar. The said injury caused by the accused Ramavtar was on the vital part of the body i.e. head and proved to be fatal. Merely because the accused Ramavtar caused the injury on the head by the blunt side of Farsa, the High Court is not justified in altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. As held by this Court in catena of decisions, even in a case of a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the case may fall under Section 302 of the IPC and the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly that it was a case of free fight, considering the fact that the weapon used by the accused Ramavtar was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in altering the conviction of the accused Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. In the facts and circumstances of t
