2023 Supreme(SC) 646

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Anbazhagan - Appellant
Versus
The State, Represented By The Inspector Of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2043 Of 2023, (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 9289 of 2019)
Decided On : 20-07-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They connote different things.
(2) All ‘murders’ are ‘culpable homicides’ but all ‘culpable homicides’ are not ‘murders’.
(3) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of IPC, are fulfilled and offence would be murder.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 6 and 8 – Intention – Intention, which is a state of mind, can never be precisely proved by direct evidence as a fact – It can only be deduced or inferred from other facts which are proved – Intention may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events previous or subsequent to incident or occurrence, on admission – Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – Relevant considerations are, nature of weapon used, place where injuries were inflicted, nature of injuries caused and opportunity available which accused gets – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They connote different things – Sometimes, if consequence is so apparent, it may happen that from knowledge, intent may be presumed – But it will not mean that ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ are same – ‘Knowledge’ will be only one of circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring requisite intent – If an act is done by a man with knowledge that certain consequences may follow or will follow, it does not necessarily mean that he intended such consequences and acted with such intention – Intention requires something more than a mere foresight of consequences – It requires a purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end. (Paras 21, 25 and 28)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 299 and 300 – Culpable homicide and murder – ‘Culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ is its species – All ‘murders’ are ‘culpable homicides’ but all ‘culpable homicides’ are not ‘murders’ – When a ‘culpable homicide is murder’, punitive consequences shall follow in terms of Section 302 of IPC, while in other cases, that is, where an offence is ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’, punishment would be dealt with under Section 304 of IPC – Distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice – Difference between clause (b) of Section 299 of IPC and clause (3) of Section 300 of IPC is one of degree of probability of death resulting from intended bodily injury – It is degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of gravest, medium or lowest degree – It is fallacious to contend that wherever there is a single injury only a case of culpable homicide is made out irrespective of other circumstances – Distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of IPC) and murder (Section 300 of IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of IPC. (Paras 33, 35, 39, 42 and 60)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of IPC, are fulfilled and offence would be murder – For the purpose of holding accused guilty of offence punishable under second part of Section 304 of IPC, accused need not bring his case within one of exceptions to Section 300 of IPC – Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder – Intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from act or acts resulting in injury or injuries – Whether accused had required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on facts of each case – Weapon of offence in present case is a common agriculture tool – Deceased died on account of internal head injuries – Case on hand does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of IPC – Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part I of IPC altered to one under Section 304 Part II of IPC and appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. (Paras 60, 62 and 63)

Facts of the case:

High Court dismissed appeal affirming the conviction of appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. Trial Court held appellant herein guilty for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of amount of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of one year. Co-accused i.e. father of appellant herein came to be acquitted by Trial Court. Only question that falls for consideration is whether conviction of appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC should be further altered to Section 304 Part II of IPC.

Findings of Court:

Appellant could only be attributed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. It is in such circumstances that we are inclined to take view that the case on hand does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.