Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M. R. Shah, JJ.
Stalin – Appellant
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2020 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3171 of 2019]
Decided on : 09-09-2020
(A) Criminal Law – Motive – Evidentiary value – Absence of motive does not disperse a prosecution case if prosecution succeed in proving the same – Motive is always in mind of person authoring the incident – Motive not being apparent or not being proved only requires deeper scrutiny of evidence by courts while coming to a conclusion – When there are definite evidence proving an incident and eyewitness account prove role of accused, absence in proving of motive by prosecution does not affect prosecution case. (Para 8.1)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – There is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted – It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case – Nature of injury, part of body where it is caused, weapon used in causing such injury are indicators of fact whether accused caused death of deceased with an intention of causing death or not – It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out – Fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether act by which death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death – It is totality of circumstances which will decide nature of offence – In present case there are three eyewitnesses believed by both Courts below – Motive is not an explicit requirement under Penal Code, though motive may be helpful in proving case of prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence – There are three eyewitnesses to incident and prosecution has been successful in proving case against accused by examining those three eyewitnesses – Assuming that alleged motive is incident which had taken place prior to four months or prosecution has failed to prove motive beyond doubt, same shall not be fatal to case of prosecution. (Paras 7 and 8)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner – In facts and circumstances, manner in which incident started in a beer party, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted – Considering totality of facts and circumstances of case and more particularly that accused inflicted blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted injury on deceased on vital part of body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause death – Case would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of IPC – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court confirming conviction of accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC modified from that of under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Accused held guilty for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo 8 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to further undergo one year R.I. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 122 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2012, convicting the appellant herein – the original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal. Court is required to consider whether the appellant herein – original accused has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or is to be convicted for any other lesser offence, viz. Section 304 Part II IPC.
Findings of the Court:
As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, we are of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 122 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2012, convicting the appellant herein - the original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 01.04.2019, this Court has issued a notice in the present appeal limited to the extent as to whether the conviction ought to have been under Section 304 Part II or Section 302 IPC. Therefore, this Court is required to consider whether the appellant herein - the original accused has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or is to be convicted for any other lesser offence, viz. Section 304 Part II IPC.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - original accused has vehemently submitted that as it is a case of a single blow, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. It is submitted that even the so-called motive alleged for the incident is prior to four months of the incident in question and, therefore, as such, the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased.
4.1 It is submitted that, as such, the occurrence had taken place out of a sudden and grave provocation and therefore the offence would fall under Exception I to Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the appellant has to be convicted for the lesser offence than Section 302 IPC.
4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant -accused has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Kunhayippu vs. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307 and Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashra (2000) 3 SCC 557 in support of his submission that for causing a single stab injury, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted.
4.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions of this Court, it is prayed to convert the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both - the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court have rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is vehemently submitted that the accused caused the injury by a knife blow on the vital part of the body - Lever. It is submitted that considering the fact that the accused was having a knife; the injury inflicted by the accused was on the vital part of the body; and that there was no any grave and sudden provocation established and proved, it is submitted that both the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that there is no absolute proposition of law laid down by this Court in any of the decisions that in case of a single blow, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. It is submitted that it is held by this Court in catena of decisions that number of injuries is irrelevant; it is not always the determining factor for ascertaining the intention. It is submitted that as held by this Court, it is the nature of injury; the part of body where it is caused; the weapon used in causing such injury which are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied upon the following decisions of this Court on the single injury and, in such
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
