1. Assault resulting in death — Dispute over livestock — Attack with wooden logs and iron pipes — Conviction under Section 302, IPC. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1752
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Krishnamurthy – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2011
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Important Points
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of intention to cause death influenced the court's decision to alter the appellant's conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(II) of IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
Headnote
Intention - Criminal Law - IPC 294(b), 324, 302 r/w 34 - The court discussed the acts and sections referenced in the judgment, highlighting the interpretation of the legal provisions and their influence on the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the accused and the deceased's family, leading to a violent altercation resulting in the death of the deceased. The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 302 of IPC, arguing lack of intention to cause death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's act, while likely to cause death, did not demonstrate an intention to cause such injuries. Therefore, the conviction was altered to that of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, and the appellant was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's act constituted an offence under Section 302 or Section 304(II) of IPC, considering the nature of the injuries and the appellant's intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of the injuries, the role played by the appellant, and the use of weapons to determine that the appellant's act fell under Section 304(II) of IPC due to the lack of intention to cause death.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's conviction was altered to that of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, with immediate release due to time already served.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
-
appellate jurisdiction
- article 136 constitution of india (Para 1)
-
appellate jurisdiction
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Senthil Jagadeesan, B. Karunakaran, Sonakshi Malhan, Sajal Jain, Remya Raj, Mrinal Kanwar.
For the Respondents: Nupur Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Joseph Aristotle S.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Senthil Jagadeesan, B. Karunakaran, Sonakshi Malhan, Sajal Jain, Remya Raj, Mrinal Kanwar.
For the Respondents: Nupur Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Joseph Aristotle S.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the act was committed with intention to cause death under Section 302 or with knowledge likely to cause death under Section 304 Part II, IPC. (Para 5 )
3. The High Court erroneously convicted the appellant under Section 302 despite observing a lack of intention to cause death. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Absence of intention to cause death, coupled with knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, warrants conviction under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302, IPC. (Para 8 )
5. Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II, IPC — Sentence reduced to ten years imprisonment and fine — Order for immediate release. (Para 9 )
6. What is the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 Part II of the IPC regarding the intent of the accused?
Section 302 requires a specific intention to cause death. In contrast, Section 304 Part II applies when the act is committed with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the specific intention to cause death. (Para 8 )
7. How does the nature of the weapon and injuries influence the determination of intent in murder cases?
The court evaluates the role played by the accused, the type of weapon used, and the resulting injuries to determine if there was a specific intention to cause death or merely knowledge of the likelihood of death. (Para 8 )
8. Can a conviction be modified if the lower court's findings on intention contradict the section under which the accused was convicted?
Yes, if the court records that the act was not done intentionally to cause death, a conviction under Section 302 is unsustainable and may be altered to Section 304 Part II. (Para 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal filed by the appellant-Krishnamurthy (Original Accused No. 2) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 2008, whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal of the present appellant and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Sessions Court, Cuddalore (hereinafter referred to as the “Sessions Court”) in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2007.
2. Initially, three accused named-Govindaraj, Krishnamurthy and Selvaraj were charged and tried before the Sessions Court, which after appreciating the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the accused no. 1-Govindaraj for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC convicted and sentenced the accused no. 2-Krishnamurthy for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused no. 3-Selvaraj for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The High Court in the appeal preferred by all the three accused, vide the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal of accused no. 2 i.e. the present appellant and modified the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of accused no. 1 by convicting him for the offence under Sections 324 and 294(b) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. The High Court also modified the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of accused no. 3, by convicting him for the offence under Section 323 of IPC alone and directing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the said offence.
3. The judgment and order passed by the High Court qua the accused nos. 1 and 3 have neither been challenged by them, nor the State has preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment acquitting the accused nos. 1 and 3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The present appeal has been filed only by the accused no. 2 challenging the impugned judgment convicting him for the offence under Section 302 and sentencing him to the life imprisonment.
4. The case of the prosecution in nutshell before the trial was that the deceased-Samidurai and the accused were the neighbours in the village-Elavathadi. Some quarrel had taken place between accused no. 1 and the wife and the son of the deceased in respect of a missing goat belonging to the deceased Samidurai. In the said quarrel on 13.03.2006, accused no. 1-Govindaraj assaulted the son of the deceased Shanmugaperumal using an iron rod on his hands and biting him on his cheek. On 14.03.2006 at about 2.00 a.m. all the three accused, with the intent to assault the deceased and his family members, armed with an iron pipe and wooden log, came to the house of the deceased by hurling abusive filths against the family members of the deceased. The deceased came out of his house and asked the accused as to why they were shouting at such an odd hour. By that time, the accused no. 2-Krishnamurthy assaulted Samidurai on his head with a wooden log and pushed him down, while the first accused-Govindaraj assaulted Samidurai who was lying on the ground using an iron pipe on his chest and the third accused-Selvaraj also assaulted Samidurai by a wooden log on the right side of his chest. When the family members of Samidurai came to rescue him, all the accused threatened them with dire consequences and ran away from the place. The said Samidurai succumbed to injuries and died at about 04.15 p.m. on 14.03.2006. On the complaint having been lodged by PW-1, son of the deceased, the investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused.
5. The learned Advocate Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan appearing for the appellant-accused no. 2 drawing the attention of the Court to the observations
