Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 323 and 324 – Murder – There was some dispute between the parties – Prosecution case was that panchayat was called to settle the dispute – Since, Pradhan of the Panchayat was indisposed, the Panchayat was not held – Thereafter, PW-2, his sister victim-deceased, his wife PW-7, PW-13 and son of PW-2 were standing outside the house of PW-2 and talking among themselves – While they were standing, all accused persons (A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-9) came armed with sickles, iron pipe and wooden staffs and attacked victim – Victim died – High Court convicted A-1 & A-2 u/s. 302 IPC, A-3 u/s. 324 IPC and A-5 & A-9 u/s. 323 IPC – Accused contended that there was a free fight on both sides and that there was no evidence to show that there was prior meeting of minds and further urged that offence was not of murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Held: The version of all the eye-witnesses against the accused persons was similar – Medical evidence also fully corroborated the version of all the eye-witnesses – Insofar benefit of Exception 4 to s.300 is concerned, evidence indicated that all accused persons came armed – The fact they were armed indicated that the occurrence did not take place in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel – A-1 had hit the deceased on head with a sickle with such a great force causing fracture of the skull, bringing the case within clause ‘Fourthly’ of s.300 IPC – Therefore, there is no reason to alter the sentence and conviction of A-1 – However, A-2 had given blow with an iron pipe on back of the neck of the deceased, which only caused abrasions – Therefore, his conviction u/s.302 altered to s.324 IPC – Insofar as conviction of A-3, A-5 and A-9 is concerned, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The doctor states that the injuries caused the death of the victim. The first injury is a lacerated wound and it is urged by the accused persons, that this injury could not have been caused by sickle (Koduval), which is a sharp-edged weapon. A sickle is an instrument mainly meant for cutting grass and crops. The inner side is sharp but the outer side is blunt. While using it as an instrument of agriculture only, the sharp edge is used but while using it as a weapon of offence, more often than not, it will be the outer side which will be used to hit the victim. The doctor has opined that the injury could have been caused by a sickle which is MO-1 and, therefore, the medical evidence fully corroborates the version of all the eye-witnesses. [Para 5] [1068-G-H; 1069-A]
2. The accused cannot take benefit of Exception 4 to s.300 IPC. It has come in evidence that all the accused persons came armed. Two were armed with sickles, one with an iron pipe and the other with wooden staffs. Even if it is assumed that they may not have come with the intention of killing, the fact that they were armed, clearly indicates that the occurrence did not take place in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel. As pointed earlier, both sides were coming to attend a Panchayat to settle a dispute. Where was the need to carry arms if the intention was only to settle a dispute? Even otherwise, Exception 4 is not applicable because the manner in which the blow was given right on the middle of the head, brings this case squarely within clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 IPC. [Para 7] [1069-D-E]
3. A-1 should have known that the act which he is performing, of hitting the deceased on the head with a sickle with such great force causing fracture of the skull, is so dangerous that it would have imminently caused death. Therefore, there is no reason to alter the sentence or conviction of A-1. [Para 8] [1070-A]
4. However, as far as A-2 is concerned, since the High Court has held that neither Section 34 nor Section 149 IPC are applicable, each accused will only be responsible for his own acts and injuries. In this behalf, reference was made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Atmaram Zingaraji vs. State of Maharashtra. There is no appeal by the State. As far as A-2 is concerned, he is alleged to have given a blow with an iron pipe on the back of the neck of the deceased. This resulted in injury numbers 2 and 3. They are merely abrasions and could not have caused death. Therefore, the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone. As far as A-3, A-5 and A-9 are concerned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court as each has been held guilty for the offence which they have committed. [Para 9] [1070-B-E] Atmaram Zingaraji v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 7 SCC 41 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 432 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.