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

2010 Supreme(SC) 468

2010 (3) Supreme 740
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Arun Raj — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2008
Decided on : 13-5-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted Section 302 would not be attracted.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300, Exception I – Protection extended by the exception is to the normal person acting normally in the given situation. (Para 6)

       (1942) A.C. 200; (1914) 3 K.B.1116 – Relied upon

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300, Exception I – Evidence ruling out possibility of the offence being committed due to ‘grave and sudden’ provocation – Protection of Section 300, Exception I not available to the appellant. (Para 8)

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304, Part II – The nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are indicators whether the respondent caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. (Para 11)

       (2004) 12 SCC 546; AIR 1958 SC 465 – Relied upon

       (2000) 10 SCC 225; (2000) 10 SCC 307; (2000) 3 SCC 557; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 554; (1999) 3 SCC 309; (2006) 7 SCC 391; (2007) 12 Scale 795 – Distinguished

       (d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – There is no fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted Section 302 would not be attracted. (Para 14)

       (2007) 10 SCC 274 – Relied upon

       (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – It is necessary to prove first that there was an intention of causing bodily injury; and that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (Para 15)

       Facts of the case:

       The scope of section 304 Part II vis-à-vis 302 of Indian Penal Code is discussed in this appeal.

       Finding of the Court:

       From the evidence on record, it is very clear that the appellant intended to cause death.

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J. —

1)This appeal by special leave is limited to a particular question only, namely, correctness of the conviction of the appellant Arun Raj for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the propriety of the sentence passed thereunder by the Presiding Officer of General Court Martial under the Indian Army Act. The short facts are these - The appellant joined the Indian Army in the year 1983 and in the year 1998 he was working as Ex-Signalman (Lance Nayak) of 787 (Independent) Air Defence Brigade Signal Company. On 22.3.1998, one Mr. S.S.B Rao (PW-4) was the Section In-Charge of Operator Section. At about 1 PM, Mr. Rao returned from lunch and the appellant reported to him that Havildar R.C Tiwari (deceased) and Havildar Inderpal (PW-3) abused him by using the word “Gandu”. On Mr. Rao making an inquiry into the same, they replied in the negative, despite the appellant making repeated assertion that they insulted him using the said word. The appellant also brought to the information of Mr. Rao that in the previous night there was a heated discussion between the appellant and the deceased and Inderpal, and the matter was reported to the superior officer. Paulose (PW-1), after having his lunch, returned to the barrack from the rank mess and he was relaxing in the cot. At this point of time, he saw the appellant coming towards the door. He was wearing a half T-shirt and lungi. The cot of the deceased was near the door and he was sleeping on it. The appellant took out a knife which was hidden in the lungi and stabbed the deceased on the right side of the chest. On witnessing the incident, PW-1 was shocked and shouted to the appellant as to why he did it. On hearing the shout of PW-1, people came in and gathered immediately. The appellant was separated by the crowd and the deceased was sent to the hospital where he finally succumbed to the injury. Major Prabal Datta (PW-9) testified that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased except the stab injury caused by a knife.

2)An FIR was lodged at the Dehu Road Police Station vide CR- 26 of 1998 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, investigation commenced, during the course of which the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem and an inquest Panchnama was also prepared. On completion of the investigation, the charge- sheet was prepared against the appellant/accused and forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vadgaon Maval. In the meantime, since the appellant belonged to the armed forces, court martial proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Army Act. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 69 of the Army Act for committing civil offence, i.e., knowingly causing the death of the deceased on 22.3.1998. On the appellant pleading not guilty, the General Court Martial proceeded to record the evidence of witnesses. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The General Court Martial after appreciating the facts and the evidence on record, found the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was charged and after hearing his submission with regard to the quantum of sentence, sentenced the appellant to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and he was also dismissed from service for committing the offence of murder punishable under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 302 of IPC. However upon revision, the Confirming Authority by an order dated 15.12.1998 held that the sentence awarded by the General Court Martial after finding the appellant guilty of murder under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 302 of IPC, was not justiciable and further observed that once the appellant was held guilty under the abovementioned Sections, he could be either sentenced to life imprisonment and fine or sentenced to death. Accordingly, the General Court Martial by an order dated 15.1.1999, revised the sentence and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and dismis






























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