Back
1971 Supreme(Del) 114
High Court Of Delhi
SURESH CHAND - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 60 of 1969
Decided On : 04/19/1971
B.G.SINGH, K.L.Arora
To establish murder under Section 300 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused intended to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and that the injury actually inflicted was sufficient to cause death.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Section 300 IPC - Ingredients - Intention to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature - Proof - Accused stabbing deceased on vital parts of body with a big knife - Held: Accused intended to cause injury sufficient to cause death - Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, who was married to the deceased's daughter, had a strained relationship with his wife and her family. He came to the deceased's house and demanded that his wife be sent back with him. When the deceased refused, the appellant stabbed him twice, causing his death. The appellant claimed self-defense, grave and sudden provocation, and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's plea of self-defense was not credible, as he had come to the deceased's house armed with a knife and had inflicted multiple stab wounds on the deceased. The court also found that the appellant's act did not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as he had acted with premeditation and had taken undue advantage of the situation.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's act fell under any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC, thereby reducing the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 2. Whether the appellant intended to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 300 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that none of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC were applicable in this case, as the appellant had acted with premeditation and had taken undue advantage of the situation. 2. The court found that the appellant intended to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, as he had stabbed the deceased twice on vital parts of the body with a big knife.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1969, convicting the appellant herein for an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also for an offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the appellant is that about two years prior to the date of offence, he had married Ansuya, daughter of Balbir Singh, the deceased in this case. The appellant was living with his wife at Muzzafar Nagar and a daughter was also born to them. The appellant and his wife were. however, quarrelling frequently and the appellant was also beating his wife. as he suspected that she was having some affair with her brother-in-law, i. e. sister husband, who was also living in the same village. On receiving information that his daughter was being ill-treated by the appellant, the deceased went to Muzzafar Nagar about a month prior to the date of offence and brought his daughter to his house at Delhi. The appellant did not allow his wife and father-in-law to take the infant daughter with them but, later on, he sent the child to Delhi. On 14-8-1968, the appellant came to the house of the deceased at about 7. 00 P. M. and after having his food with the deceased and the other members of the family, he asked the deceased to send Ansuya with him. The deceased replied that he would send her after the appellant had found some employment. But when the appellant insisted that his wife should be sent back with him immediately, the deceased called Ansuya and asked her whether she was willing to go with her husband. Ansuya flatly refused to go with the appellant in view of his ill-treatment in the past. The appellant then got excited and started abusing the deceased. The latter got up from the cot where he was sitting. The appellant then whipped out a knife from the pocket of p his trousers and stabbed the deceased on the right-side of his chest. He stabbed the deceased again on the left-side of his head. Ansuya and her younger brother Devinder Singh and her younger sister Sunita, who were present at that time, tried to intervene. The appellant then inflicted an injury with the knife on the left elbow of Ansuya. On hearing the alarm raised by these persons. Ram Avtar, Chet Ram and Hem Chand, who happened to be standing at the Halwai shop on the ground floor of the same house, and Narinder Singh the elder son of the deceased who happened to be on the roof of the house at that time, came rushing to the scene of offence. All of them santched away the knife from the hands of the appellant. The deceased, who appeared to be in a serious condition, was removed to the hospital by Narinder Singh and Ansuya. By the time they reached the hospital, the deceased was found to be dead. Meanwhile, somebody had informed the police control room by telephone and the police arrived at the scene of offence shortly thereafter and recorded the statement of Sunita. the younger daughter of the deceased. The police also seized the knife which was produced by Ram Avtar, who was one of those persons who had snatched the knife from the hands of the appellant. The police then arrested the appellant. The shirt, pants and the bunyan then worn by the appellant were found to be blood-stained and were, therefore, seized by the police. The appellant was also found to be having a number of injuries on his person and he was also sent to the hospital for examination of these injuries. Later, Ansuya, the wife of the appellant, was also got examined by the doctor and she was also found to be having some injuries on her person,
( 3 ) SEVERAL pleas have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant either by way of self-defence or by way of extenuating circumstances. The first plea taken is that of self-defence. According to the appellant, he did not come to th
