1. Conviction for murder under Section 302/149 IPC reduced by High Court to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC — Appeal against reduction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 757
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan at Jodhpur)
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Amritpal @ Chhotu and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 9185 of 2016
Decided On : 30-11-2021
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Manish K. Bishnoi, Pallavii Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Chitrangda Rastravara, Manvendra Singh Rathore, Dashrath Singh Rathore, Aditya Chauhan, Manish Singhvi, Arpit Parkash, Milind Kumar, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Manish K. Bishnoi, Pallavii Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Chitrangda Rastravara, Manvendra Singh Rathore, Dashrath Singh Rathore, Aditya Chauhan, Manish Singhvi, Arpit Parkash, Milind Kumar, Advocates
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Once prosecution establishes existence of three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300 of IPC, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on part of accused to cause death – It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Once prosecution establishes existence of three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300 of IPC, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on part of accused to cause death – It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Subject
Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304 Part II, 147, 364, 201 and 329/149 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, kidnapping and disappearance of evidence – Common object – Conviction and sentence – None of exceptions to Section 300 of IPC are applicable – Apart from injuries on non-vital parts, there was a fracture of 6th to 10th ribs on right side and the right lung was ruptured – Even wind pipe and food pipe were ruptured – There was an injury to liver – Cause of death as certified by Board was excessive bleeding due to injuries on vital parts like right lung as well as liver and resultant shock – It is impossible to say that injuries on chest which resulted into fracture of 5 ribs and rupture of right lung were accidental or un-intentional – Once prosecution establishes existence of three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on part of accused to cause death – It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Even knowledge that an act of that kind is likely to cause death is not necessary to attract “thirdly” – High Court adopted an easy method of accepting only contention canvassed that offence made out was culpable homicide not amounting to murder – High Court ignored that there were injuries on vital parts of body of deceased – High Court did not notice that all elements of “thirdly” in Section 300 were established – Absence of intention to kill is not relevant in facts of the case – High Court has committed a gross error by applying Section 304 Part II of IPC, Judgment and order of High Court set aside and judgment and order of Sessions Court restored. (Paras 16 to 22)
Facts of the case:
Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the Sessions Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan. By the impugned Judgment and order dated 18th July 2016, while maintaining the conviction of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 364, 201 and 329/149 of IPC, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC was brought down to the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The fine amount was not disturbed. Counsel for the accused challenged only the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Counsel appearing for accused without challenging the incident and participation of the accused in the incident, made a submission before the High Court that the offence established against accused was the one punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Accused did not challenge the conviction for the other offences. Only question to be decided is whether the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out.
Findings of Court:
Accused directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. If they fail to surrender within six weeks from today, action be taken by the Trial Court for arresting them in accordance with law. They shall undergo remaining period of sentence in terms of the judgment of the Trial Court dated 26th September 2011.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
- offences against the person
- general principles of criminal liability
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether injuries to vital organs establish intention under Section 300 "thirdly" IPC — versus absence of intention based on the accused seeking medical aid for the victim. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Injuries to lungs and liver were not accidental and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, satisfying the requirements of Section 300 "thirdly" IPC. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 20 )
4. Under Section 300 "thirdly" IPC, if intention to inflict a specific injury sufficient to cause death is proved, the intention to cause death is irrelevant. (Para 16 , 18 )
5. High Court judgment set aside — Sessions Court conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC restored — Accused directed to surrender. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. What are the requirements to establish murder under the "thirdly" clause of Section 300 IPC?
The prosecution must establish: first, that a bodily injury is present; second, the nature of the injury; third, the intention to inflict that particular bodily injury; and fourth, that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (Para 16 )
7. Is the intention to cause death necessary for a conviction under Section 300 "thirdly" IPC?
No. Once the intention to cause the specific bodily injury found to be present is proved, and that injury is objectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the offence is murder regardless of whether there was an intention to cause death. (Para 16 , 18 )
8. Does seeking medical aid for a victim negate the intention required for murder under Section 300 "thirdly" IPC?
No. If the accused inflicted injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature with the intention to cause those specific injuries, subsequent actions such as taking the victim to a doctor do not negate the offence under Section 300 "thirdly". (Para 18 , 20 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 are the accused who were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 364, 302/149, 201 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2. The Sessions Court convicted the respondent nos. 1 to 5 (the accused) for all the aforesaid offences. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 of IPC. For the other offences, lesser punishments were imposed. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. For the offence punishable under Sections 302, the accused were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. They were also directed to pay fine for other offences. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was directed to be paid to the widow of the deceased.
3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the Sessions Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan. By the impugned Judgment and order dated 18th July 2016, while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 364, 201 and 329/149 of IPC, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC was brought down to the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The fine amount was not disturbed.
4. The appellant, who is the first informant, has taken an exception to the impugned Judgment and order of the High Court. He is the brother of a victim of the offence Vijay Singh (PW-1). The allegation against the accused is also of committing murder of Balveer Singh. Vijay Singh (PW-1) was injured in the incident.
5. From the impugned Judgment and order, it appears that the learned counsel for the accused while arguing the appeal challenged only the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The learned counsel appearing for accused without challenging the incident and participation of the accused in the incident, made a submission before the High Court that the offence established against the accused was the one punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. The accused did not challenge the conviction for the other offences.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the impugned Judgment and order of the High Court. His submission is that the injuries on the person of the deceased were on vital parts of his body. He pointed out that 6th to 10th ribs of the deceased were found to be fractured and right lung was ruptured. Moreover, there was an injury to his liver. He pointed out the opinion of the medical board that injuries to the vital parts like right lung and liver led to excessive bleeding and shock, which was the cause of death. He submitted that the High Court proceeded on erroneous footing that there were no injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. He further submitted that none of the exceptions to Section 300 of IPC were applicable. He also pointed out that before throwing the body of the deceased into a canal, his face was completely smashed by the accused. He submitted that “thirdly” in Section 300 of IPC was applicable. Dr. Manish Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan, supported the appellant.
7. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, the learned counsel representing the accused pointed out that there is no evidence on record to show that objects like iron rod and sticks were used to assault the deceased as even PW-1 Vijay Singh has not deposed to that effect in his examination-in-chief. He submitted that no weapons were used to attack the deceased. He submitted that the fact that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill deceased Balveer Singh is clear from the fact that the accused took Balveer Singh to a doctor. Moreover, the accused took PW-1 Vijay Si
