1. Assault with weapons resulting in death following a land dispute — Conviction under Sections 148 and 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1187
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Pop Singh & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1846 of 2010
Decided on : 29-11-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Nature of injuries is decisive to determine appropriate section for conviction of accused.
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Nature of injuries is decisive to determine appropriate section for conviction of accused.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 (Part-I) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – From nature of injuries, it cannot be said that instant case would either fall under Section 325 or Section 326 of I.P.C. – There are nine injuries – However, all injuries are lacerated wounds and they can be caused only by blunt side of weapons used – If appellants had intention to do away with deceased, nothing prevented them from assaulting deceased with sharp side of weapons – It cannot be said that appellants had intention to cause death of deceased – However, from nature of injuries, it is clear that act was done with knowledge that injuries were likely to cause death of deceased – Judgment and order of Trial Court as well of High Court altered and conviction of appellants converted from Section 304 (Part-I) to one under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC – Five years rigorous imprisonment would subserve ends of justice. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 20th November, 2009, whereby High Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the present appellants. Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore had convicted appellants under Section 148 and Section 304 (Part-I) of Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 02 years for offence under Section 148 IPC and R.I. for 10 years for offence under Section 304 (Part-I) with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for 6 months. High Court, while confirming conviction under 304 (Part-I), reduced sentence to seven years.
Findings of Court:
As appellants have already undergone 03 years and 05 months, appellants shall surrender to the custody within a period of four weeks from today for serving remainder of sentence.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Ms. Vijaya Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Verma, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Ms. Vijaya Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Verma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim lack of intent to kill and seek conviction under Sections 325 or 326 IPC — State contends the act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Lacerated wounds caused by the blunt side of weapons indicate a lack of intention to kill, though knowledge of the likelihood of death existed. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Use of the blunt side of weapons instead of the sharp side negates intention to cause death, shifting the offence from Section 304 (Part-I) to 304 (Part-II) IPC. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Conviction converted from Section 304 (Part-I) to Section 304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. How does the nature of injuries influence the distinction between Section 304 Part-I and Part-II IPC?
If injuries are caused by the blunt side of weapons when the sharp side could have been used, it suggests a lack of intention to cause death, supporting a conviction under Section 304 Part-II rather than Part-I. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. When is an act considered to be done with knowledge but without intention to cause death under the IPC?
An act is considered to be done with knowledge if the nature of the injuries indicates they were likely to cause death, even if the specific intent to kill is not established by the manner of assault. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Can a conviction be reduced from Section 304 Part-I to Part-II based on medical evidence of the type of wounds?
Yes, if medical evidence shows lacerated wounds caused by blunt force rather than sharp-edge injuries, the court may conclude there was no intention to kill, justifying the alteration to Section 304 Part-II. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 20th November, 2009, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the present appellants. The learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore had convicted the appellants under Section 148 and Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”) read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 02 years for offence under Section 148 IPC and R.I. for 10 years for offence under Section 304 (Part-I) with a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for 6 months. The High Court, while confirming the conviction under 304 (Part-I), reduced the sentence to seven years.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that there was a dispute between accused persons and one Mr. Guman Singh, father of deceased Jeevan Singh on account of purchase of land of one Gulab Singh by the accused. It is the prosecution case that on 23rd April, 1997, when deceased Jeevan Singh was going to a vegetable market, Indore for selling the vegetables on his scooter, at around 07:30 a.m., when he reached in front of the house of one Ramlal in Village Alwasa, all the appellants armed with Axe, Farsa and Dharia started assaulting Jeevan Singh. Jeevan Singh fell down on the ground from the scooter. P.W.6 Padam Singh, who is the uncle of the deceased Jeevan Singh, on hearing cry of Jeevan Singh, reached on the spot and saw the appellants-accused assaulting Jeevan Singh with various sharp edge weapons. Since, the accused persons also attempted to assault Padam Singh, he ran away and hid inside the jungle. P.W.1 Bhagwantibai, one Ramesh and P.W.7 Peer Mohd. had also witnessed the incident. Thereafter, the appellants went to the house of Guman Singh and threatened him. Jeevan Singh was taken to the hospital at Indore by P.W.8-Peer Mohd. and Rajendra Singh.
3. F.I.R. came to be lodged by P.W.6-Padam Singh. Since, the deceased was admitted to the hospital, initially the F.I.R. came to be lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. The statement of the deceased was also recorded by the Police on the same day in which he named all the appellants. The appellants were apprehended and on their disclosure statement, weapons were seized. After four days of hospitalization, the deceased died on 27th April, 1997. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. in the Court of competent Judicial Magistrate and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge passed the aforesaid order of conviction. In the appeal before the High Court, the High Court confirmed the same.
4. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that none of the injuries sustained by the deceased were on the vital parts of the body. Injuries were only on the hands and legs. It is therefore, submitted that it cannot be said that either the appellants had an intention or knowledge that injuries caused would result in death. He therefore submits that the case at the most would fall under Sections 325 or 326 of the I.P.C. He submits that for the said offence the period undergone i.e. three years and five months would subserve the ends of justice.
5. Shri Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, on the contrary, submits that the High Court has already taken a lenient view in the matter and has reduced the sentence from R.I. for 10 years to 07 years. He, therefore, submits that, as a matter of fact, the instant case would fall under Section 302 of the I.P.C., inasmuch as the appellants armed with deadly weapons had waylaid the deceased on account of previous enmity. He further submits that as many as 09 injuries have been sustained by t
