IMPORTANT POINT
For cases to fall within clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 299, 300, 302, 304-I—Culpable homicide and Murder—Assailants entering house of deceased armed with iron rods, axes and lathis and beat him indiscriminately after chasing him—Deceased had made complaint against A1 before Sarpanch—Conviction u/s 304-I r/ws 149 IPC—Custodial sentence of 10 years.
       Held : Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding clauses. It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons - being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. (Para 26)
       The above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each, that it may not be convenient to give a separate and clear cut treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages.(Para 27)
       If the evidence on record is considered on the touchstone principles set out above the inevitable conclusion is that the proper conviction would be Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The conviction of the appellants is accordingly altered from Section 302 read with Section 149 to Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice.(Para 29)
       (ii) CRIMINAL TRIAL—Relation Witnesses—Evidentiary value—Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness—Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made—In such cases Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 304-I.
       Held : In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.(Para 8)
       We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh’s case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses.(Para 11)
       (iii) CRIMINAL TRIAL—Maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything)—Inapplicability in India—It is merely a rule of caution—Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 304.
       Held : It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence’.(Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

3. Appellant along with 14 others was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 448 read with Section 149, Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).The III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar found all the accused persons guilty of the charged offences. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC each of the accused persons was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation. Similarly, for the offences relatable to Sections 148, 448, 149 and 324 IPC different sentences were imposed. In appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence as imposed by the Trial Court on the present appellants and accused nos. 7 to 9, 12 and 13. The High Court directed acquittal of rest of the accused persons of all charges.

3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :

PW-1 is the wife, PW-2 is the father, PW-3 is the mother, PW-4 is the brother and PW-5 is the sister-in-law of Pogula Jasan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). The accused, deceased and the material witnesses are residents of Neerukulla village. The deceased purchased an Auto and was plying the same between Sulthanabad and Neerukulla. On 02.07.2003 at about 9.00 P.M., the deceased returned to his house from Sulthanabad and informed PWs.1 to 3 that when he requested A-1 and A-2 to travel in his Auto as per the serial number, they refused to travel in his Auto and beat him.

4. On 03.07.2003 morning, PW-1 and the deceased went to the house of the Sarpanch and told him about the incident. The Sarpanch called A-1 and enquired from him as to why he had assaulted the deceased. A-1 admitted his guilt in the presence of PWs. 9 and 10. On the same day at about 6.00 P.M., A-l to A-16 came to the house of the deceased and attacked him. A-1 beat the deceased with a stick. The deceased ran into the house and bolted the door. In the meantime, when PW-2 intervened to rescue the deceased, A-1 beat him with a stick. A-3 broke the doors and all the accused entered the house and beat the deceased. Some of the accused were armed with iron rods and axes. They beat the deceased indiscriminately. Then the deceased ran out from the house. The accused chased and beat him indiscriminately. Finally, the deceased fell down near the Gram Panchayat office on receipt of the injuries. Later, the deceased was taken in an Auto to the Government Hospital, Sulthanabad. On the advice of the Doctor, the persons who carried the deceased to the hospital went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 report. On the basis of Ex.P-1, the police registered a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 307, 327 read with 149 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the deceased and PW-2, who received injuries, were referred to the Government Hospital, Karimnagar. The deceased, while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the injuries. The Inspector of Police took up investigation, prepared the rough sketch, observed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, seized M.Os.1 and 2 and later sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The accused were arrested and weapons were recovered. After completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial.

5. In order to further the prosecution version the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. On behalf of the accused persons no oral evidence was adduced, but part of the statement of PW-3 recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) was marked as Ext.D-1. On consideration of the material on record the Trial Court as noted above recorded conviction. The convicted accused persons preferred appeals before the High Court and by common judgment in four appeals the impugned judgment was passed.

6. In support of the appeal, lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 200

IMPORTANT POINTFor cases to fall within clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Cases Referred (13)

IMPORTANT POINT
For cases to fall within clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.