Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No. 626 of 2015)
Decided on : 10-04-2019
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 – Murder – Ingredients – Axe injury inflicted on head of victim – Injury sustained by deceased not only exhibits intention of accused in causing death of victim, but also knowledge of accused in that regard – Such attack could be none other than for causing death of victim – Any reasonable person can come to conclusion that such injury on such a vital part of body, with such a weapon, would cause death – Once these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows. (Paras 6.3 and 6.4)
Facts of Case:
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, High Court, while allowing appeal filed by respondent, convicted him under Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code, instead of Section 302 of IPC. High Court sentenced respondent to undergo 8 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer one-month simple imprisonment. State preferred this appeal against said decision.
Findings of Court:
It is not a case on behalf of accused that there was an altercation between accused and deceased at the time of commission of the offence. Altercation, if any, had taken place, in the morning and much earlier than the time of incident. Merely because altercation might have taken place much earlier and not immediately prior to and/or at the time of commission of offence, it cannot be inferred that there was no intention on part of accused to cause death of deceased. High Court has committed grave error in converting/altering conviction from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The High Court erred in converting/altering conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of IPC; Supreme Court restored 302 conviction and life sentence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - There is no fixed rule that a single blow excludes Section 302; factors like weapon, target, and intent on death matter. (!) (!) (!) - The Court reaffirmed that when a deadly weapon hits a vital part (head) with likelihood of death, it constitutes murder under Section 300 IPC, regardless of number of blows. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The observations about prior altercation do not negate intent to cause death if evidence shows such intent; High Court’s reasoning accordingly found perverse. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment cites Arun Raj v. UOI (2010) and Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar and Leela Ram decisions to support that single-blow cases can still fall under Section 302. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Supreme Court restores the trial court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment, and directs surrender if already released. (!) (!) - The State’s appeal succeeded in overturning the High Court’s misclassification; the order to convert to 304 Part I is set aside. (!) (!) - The case involved an axe blow to the head causing death; medical evidence supported murder conviction. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses the requirements of Section 300 and Exception 4 of Section 300, emphasizing lack of ground to reduce to 304 Part I. (!) (!) - The decision clarifies that altercation timing (morning vs. at the time) does not negate intention to cause death if evidence shows such intention. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan dated 23.05.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2009. The High Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, convicted him under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, instead of Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court sentenced the respondent to undergo 8 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine, to suffer one month simple imprisonment. The State preferred this appeal against the said decision.
3. A First Information Report was lodged by one Dalip Kumar at Police Station Nimbaheda being FIR No.32/2008. It was alleged that on 26.01.2008, when PW-5 - Ms. Kailashi was returning from the farm, in her presence, Kanhaiya Lal attacked Raju (deceased) on his head by an axe. As per PW-5, Raju fell down and, on her cries, other persons reached the spot. The accused ran away. That Raju succumbed to the injuries. After concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. That the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore he came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. That the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses including PW1 Dr. K. Asif, who issued the Injury Report (Exhibit P1); PW5 Ms. Kailashi; PW15 Dr. Anees Ahmed, who performed the Post-Mortem Report of the deceased. Through the witnesses who were examined, the prosecution brought on record the documentary evidence including the Injury Report (Exhibit P1) as well as the Post-Mortem Report. That thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which accused stated that he has been falsely implicated. No evidence/witness was produced by the accused in defence. That thereafter, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Court held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo further one month SI.
3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court, the respondent-original accused preferred Appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2009. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the accused and has convicted the accused under Section 304 Part I of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the State against the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court, converting the conviction of the accused to Section 304 Part I of the IPC in place of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-the State of Raj as than has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in altering the conviction of the accused from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State that the main reason given by the High Court while converting the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I is that the deceased died because of a single injury caused on his head. It is submitted that however the High Court has not, at all, considered the fact that the accused gave the blow by an axe, a deadly weapon and that too on the vital part of the body, i.e. head. It is submitted that as per the medical evidence, the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is submitted that, therefore, the High Court is not justified in converting the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
4.2 It is further submitt
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
