2006(3) Crimes 210 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
G.P. Mathur and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Arun Nivalaji More — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1078-1079 of 2005
Decided on 8-8-2006

IMPORTANT POINT
In order to ascertain that “there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury” in terms of clause thirdly to Section 300 IPC, enquiry should not be directed to find out whether offender had intention to cause those very bodily injuries to internal organs of body which were actually found to be there in medical examination.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Appellant armed with knife entered into office of deceased the Divisional Commercial Superintendent and gave blow by knife on left side of stomach — Deceased died two days after in hospital — Trial Court convicted appellant u/s 304 Part I IPC — High Court dismissed appeal of appellant and allowed State appeal to convict appellant u/s 302 IPC — Appeal — Prosecution version of incident stood fully established by eye account of incident, motive for crime and dying declaration — Contention that appellant had no intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death — Question for consideration was whether offence would come within ambit of clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC — Word “knowledge” occurring in clause Secondly of Section 300 imported some kind of certainty and not merely a probability — Appellant could not be said knowing that bodily injury to be likely to cause death was caused with intention — To ascertain that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, enquiry should not be directed to find out whether offender had intention to cause those very injuries to internal organs of body which were actually found — Intention was to be gathered from host of circumstances — Injury inflicted by appellant was clearly intended by him — Medical evidence established that injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death — Conviction u/s 302 IPC was well founded.

       Held : Having regard to the meaning assigned in criminal law the word “knowledge” occurring in clause Secondly of Section 300 IPC imports some kind of certainty and not merely a probability. Consequently, it cannot be held that the appellant caused the injury with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the appellant knew to be likely to cause the death of Shri Ahirwar. So, clause Secondly of Section 300 IPC will also not apply.(Para 13)

       In order to ascertain that “there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury” the enquiry should not be directed to find out whether the offender had intention to cause those very injuries to the internal organs of the body which were actually found to be there in medical examination. The intention has to be gathered from host of circumstances like the seat of injury, viz., the place or portion of the body where the injury has been caused, the nature of the weapon, its size and dimension or other attributes and the force applied in inflicting the injury. Being a question of fact it is difficult to lay down exhaustive tests to ascertain as to whether the offender intended to inflict that particular injury which is found on the body of the deceased but the features enumerated above will certainly play a vital role in arriving at a correct conclusion on the said issue.(Para 16)

       The mere fact that a dangerous or deadly weapon was not used or the injuries were not caused on vital part of the body may not necessarily take out the offence from the clutches of clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. Death may take place on account of large number of blows given by a blunt weapon like lathi on hands and legs causing fractures. Though the injuries may not be on a vital part of the body as the said term is generally understood, but if the medical evidence shows that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence would fall in clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC.(Para 17)

       In the present case the prosecution has established beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellant caused an injury by knife on the left hypochondrium which resulted in 1" long tear in posterior wall of stomach in middle part of body of stomach, 2½ " long rupture in anterior wall of body of stomach, there were two tears in omentum 3" x 3" each, there was 3" long rupture in left lobe in liver, and there was one small perforation in the middle of transverse colon. The injury inflicted by the appellant was clearly intended by him and it was not an accidental or unintentional injury. The medical evidence established that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In these circumstances there is no escape from the conclusion that the offence committed by the appellant is clearly covered by clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC.(Para 19)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.