Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ratnavel Pandian, M. Fathima
Beevi and K. Jayachandra Reddy. JJ.
JaiPrakash - Appellant
versus
State (Delhi Admn.) - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 50 of 1979
Decided on 5-2-1991
(ii) Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 300, Clause thirdly of; - Interpretation and scope of - Appellant was having illicit relations with the wife of the deceased - His visits to her house were resented and objected - On the date of the occurrence, the accused visited the house in the absence of the deceased - He went there armed with a kirpan - When the deceased came and objected to his presence there was an altercation and exchange of hot words, and not a fight - Appellant took out a knife and stabbed on the chest of the deceased resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased - Right of private defence cannot be pleaded in these circumstances - The accused intentionally incited that injury though it may not be premeditated one - Once the ingredient of intention is established then the offence would be murder - Conviction U/S 302, IPC upheld.
Held: It is fallacious to contend that when death is caused by a single blow Clause Thirdly is not attracted and therefore it would not amount to murder. The ingredient 'Intention' in that Clause is very important and that gives the clue in a given case whether offence involved is murder or not. For the purpose of considering the scope of Clause 3 it is not necessary for us to embark upon an examination of the entire scope of Section 299 and 300 I.P.C. 'Intention' is different from 'motive' or 'ignorance' or 'negligence'. It is the 'knowledge' or 'intention' with which the act is done that makes difference, in arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. Therefore it is necessary to know the meaning of these ex. press ions as used in these provisions. (Para 8)
Further held: -In Clause Thirdly the words "intended to be inflicted" are significant. 'As noted already, when a person commits an act, he is presumed to expect the natural consequences. But from the mere fact that the injury caused is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death it does not necessarily follow that the offender intended to cause the injury of that nature. However, the presumption arises that he intended to cause that particular injury. In such a situation the Court has to' ascertain whether the facts and circumstances in the case the such as to rebut the presumption and such facts and circumstances cannot be laid down in an abstract rule and they will vary .from case to case. (Para 9)
Consequently held: That we are not concerned with the intention to cause death in which case it will be a murder simplicitor unless exception is attracted. We are, concerned under clause Thirdly with the intention to cause that particular injury which is a subjective inquiry and when once such intention is established and if the intended injury is found objectively to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, clause Thirdly is attracted and it would be murder, under one of the exceptions to Section 300 is attracted. If on the other hand this ingredient of 'intention' is not established or if a reasonable doubt arises in this regard then only it world be reasonable to infer that Clause Thirdly is not attracted and that the accused must be attributed knowledge that in inflicting the injury he was likely to cause death in which case it will be culpable homicide punishable under Section-304, Part I.P.C.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. -The appellant, the sole accused in this case, has been convicted I under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the High Court of Delhi for causing the murder of one Champat Rai, the deceased in the case.
2. The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of P.W.2, the sole eye-witness. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.2 is not wholly reliable and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained. However, we may at this stage point out that the main submission has been that even if the prosecution case is to be accepted, an offence of murder is not made out as the accused was entitled to the right of private defence. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel, having regard to the fact that as the appellant is alleged to have inflicted only a single injury which proved fatal, the offence committed would be one amounting to culpable homicide. To appreciate these submissions in a proper perspective, we think it necessary to state the facts of the case.
3. The deceased was married to Agya Devi Examined as P.W.3. He lived with his wife ill a house in East Azad Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi. In the adjoining house were living his mother, P.W.1 and his two brothers P.Ws. 2 and 5. The appellant was married to a cousin of Agya Devi, P.W.3 and he used to visit the house of the deceased ostensibly as a relative. The deceased. P.Ws. 1,2 and 5 objected to the appellant's visits as they suspected illicit relations between the appellant and Agya Devi, P.W.3, wife of the deceased. On August 18, 1973 at about 11 P.M. when the deceased was not in the house, the appellant came to visit Agya Devi. A few minutes later the deceased also came home and he objected to the presence of the appellant on this there was an altercation and exchange of hot words. Then the appellant took out a Kirpan (Churra) from his waist and stabbed the deceased in the chest the deceased fell down crying that the appellant has killed him. The appellant with the weapon run out of the house. The incident was witnessed by P.W.2 from the roof where he had retired for sleeping during the night. P. W.2 and his, another brother P.W. 5 chased the appellant but as the appellant who was armed with a leathal weapon threatened them and made good his escape. On return they found the deceased dead. P.W. 3 was sitting next to the body and was crying. The information was sent to the Police and P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector, Kotwali Police Station came to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of P.W.2 on the basis of which the case was registered against the appellant He seized certain incriminating articles, held the inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. He also recorded the statements of tile material witnesses. One of the recoveries made by him consisted of a sheath of the Kirpan. The Doctor, P.W. 17, examined the dead body and conducted the post-mortem. He found one incised stab wound on the left side of the chest which proved fatal. The particulars of the injury are:
(1) One incised stab wound, horizontally placed on the (L) side of the chest 1" laterial to the left side and 2" below and medial to the (L) Nipple size 1" x 112" x with spindal shaped appearance and with either margins pointed. The margins of the wound were smooth and the collection of blood in the soft tissues.
(2) One incised would over right little finger at the base of second phalynx on dorcal surface size 3/4" x 4/10" x bone deep. There is collection of blood in the soft tissues and there was cut mark on the base of second phalynx right little finger. The wound was bandaged with a piece of bandage and cotton soiled in blood. The wound is not spindle shaped in appearance.
The margins were smooth. This injury was a simple one and not due to a separate blow The Doctor opined that injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was haemorrhage and sh
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
