SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(SC) 77

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Anda and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. R. Prem, Senior Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; M/s. Brij Bans Kishore and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
Brij Bhusan Kishore, D.R.Prem, O.P.RANA, R.N.SACH

The intention to cause bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, coupled with the knowledge that the injuries are likely to cause death, elevates culpable homicide to murder under S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - CULPABLE HOMICIDE - MURDER - DISTINCTION - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH OR BODILY INJURY LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH - SUFFICIENCY OF INJURY TO CAUSE DEATH IN ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE - COMMON INTENTION - S. 300, INDIAN PENAL CODE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted of murder under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting and causing the death of Bherun. The prosecution proved that the appellants and the deceased were on inimical terms and that the appellants had a common intention to assault the deceased. The deceased was dragged into a house and beaten severely by the appellants, resulting in numerous injuries, including fractures of the limbs and multiple bruises and lacerated wounds. The medical evidence indicated that the injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the offence committed by the appellants amounted to murder under S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the appellants had the intention to cause bodily injury to the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as evidenced by the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted. The court also found that the appellants had the knowledge that the injuries they were inflicting were likely to cause death, as they were aware of the deceased's weakened condition due to prior injuries.

Issues: 1. Whether the offence committed by the appellants amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 2. Whether the appellants had the intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death. 3. Whether the appellants had the knowledge that the injuries they were inflicting were likely to cause death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code to determine the nature of the offence committed by the appellants. The court held that the appellants' actions fell within the third clause of S. 300, which states that culpable homicide is murder if the offender does the act with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The court found that the appellants had the intention to cause bodily injury to the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as evidenced by the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted. The court also found that the appellants had the knowledge that the injuries they were inflicting were likely to cause death, as they were aware of the deceased's weakened condition due to prior injuries.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : The appellants, who are four in number, have been convicted by the Rajasthan High Court under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Previously they were convicted along with three others by the Sessions Judge, Merta under S. 302 but read with S. 149 of the Code. On the acquittal of the others the change in the section wad made. The appellants were charged in the alternative and no question of a new charge arises. Special leave was granted to the appellants limited to the question whether S. 302 read with S. 34 was applicable to the facts of the case. At the hearing before us Mr. Prem claimed that under the leave he was entitled to argue that the offence disclosed by the evidence did not fall within S. 302, Indian Penal Code, while Mr. Brij Bans Kishore contended that the only point on which leave was granted was whether S. 34, Indian Penal Code was properly invoked. In our opinion, leave was not granted on the latter point which does not present any difficulty at all but on the question whether the conviction for murder is justifiable.

2. The incident took place on June 29, 1961, at about 5 or 5-30 a. in. at a village called Hindas. One Bherun son of Girdhari Jat was assaulted by a number of persons and received numerous injuries. He died as result on the same day. Prosecution proved satisfactorily that Bherun and his father Girdhari were on inimical terms with the appellants and that certain criminal proceedings were going on between them. The prosecution further proved that Bherun had gone to Hindas with a servant to attend to his fields there. He was on his way to the fields, when he passed the house of Bhagu (one of the original accused but since acquitted) and was caught hold of by Anda (appellant No. 1) and Roopla (appellant No. 2) and was assaulted. They and the other accused dragged him inside the house and beat him severely. Bherun tried hard to avoid being dragged inside the house and clung desperately to the door jamb but Anda and Roopla struck him on his hands with their sticks to make him release his hold. His cries attracted the neighbours and one of them Moda (P.W. 8) attempted a rescue but was beaten off. The evidence, proving the presence and participation of these appellants in the assault has been concurrently accepted by the High Court and the Sessions Judge and the findings on this part of the case must be considered as established. There can be no question that the appellants were actuated by a common intention which must have been the result of a prior concert, regard being had to the time, and the place and the circumstances of the visit of Bherun. Section 34, Indian Penal Code as we shall show presently, was thus rightly invoked and that aspect of the case furnishes no difficulty whatever.

3. Bherun was examined by Mr. C.L. Sablok, Medical Officer in-charge, Merta City Dispensary and he is witness no. 4 for the prosecution. Mr. Sablok found Bherun in great pain and sinking. He noted the injuries observed by him in his report (Ex. P. 1) which he was able to verify more fully when he performed the autopsy after Bherun s death. His second report is Ex. P. 2. The two examinations revealed the existence of over thirty wounds and injuries. There were fractures of the right and left ulnas, second and third metacarpal bones of the right hand and second metacarpal bone of the left hand, compound fractures of the right tibia and right fibula, the tibia being fractured at two places and fracture of the left fibula. These fractures lay under large bruises and lacerated wounds. Mr. Sablok could specify nine such bruises in addition to multiple bruises running in different directions on the right buttock which he was unable to count. There were as many as sixteen lacerated wounds on the arms and legs and a hematoma on the right forehead and a big bruise on the middle of the chest. When Bherun was admitted in the hospital he was bleeding profu









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top