Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part-II and 302 – Prosecution case that PW-1 and ‘P’ disturbed with interference of appellants on their land had filed suit against them – It was alleged that when ‘P’ along with PW-13 and DW-1 were returning to their village from nearby village they came across the disputed land, suddenly, appellants armed with weapons attacked ‘P’ and assaulted him – Injured ‘P’ was taken to a police post, where he lodged a report – Thereafter, he was taken to a Health Centre, where doctor-PW-4 attended him and referred him to hospital, however, on the way to hospital his situation deteriorated and was brought back to PW-4, who declared him dead – Trial Court convicted all the 7 accused u/ss. 302,341 and 323 r/w.149 and ss.147 and 148 – However, High Court acquitted 4 persons but confirmed the conviction of other 3 accused-appellants – On appeal, held: The totality of circumstances of the case on hand would amply show that there was a sudden verbal quarrel and evidently there was no pre-meditated plan to attack the deceased – In view of the civil disputes already pending between both the families, a minor verbal exchange bloated into a sudden physical attack – In instant case, death was not instantaneous, and ‘P’ died after sometime, due to hemorrhage – Two simple injuries were inflicted and one turned out to be fatal later – The circumstances demonstrates that the appellant had no intention to cause death, though he had knowledge that the weapon used by him to inflict injury on scalp of the deceased may cause death – But in the absence of intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence does not fall within the scope of s.300 IPC but it will fall within s.304 Part-II, IPC – Therefore, appellants-accused (A-1,A-2 and A-3) guilty for an offence punishable u/s.304 Part-II and not for the offence u/s.300.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The totality of circumstances of the case on hand would amply show that there was a sudden verbal quarrel and evidently there was no pre-meditated plan to attack the deceased. In view of the civil disputes already pending between both the families, a minor verbal exchange bloated into a sudden physical attack. [Para 25] [373-D-E]
2. It is important to have a look at the evidence of PW5 who has conducted Post mortem and according to him there was an incised wound on the right parietal region of size 4" and 10" above right ear and another incised wound of 1" in size on the right index finger. He has deposed that “the brain was found congested, yet no fracture was seen on the scalp”. Though in the cross examination he has stated at one place that the injury No 2 on the scalp might be ‘grievous’ that caused brain hemorrhage. This particular fact is not noted in the postmortem report. Regarding the cause of such injury, PW5 stated that it can be caused by striking with sharp edged object and the depth of the scalp injury depends upon the force and speed. He maintains the stand that it was a ‘scalp injury’ and not ‘skull injury’. Moreover, he did not measure the depth of the head injury which was necessary for classification of injury. [Para 28] [374-E-G]
3. The force and gravity of assault indicates that the aforesaid assault was carried out with only sufficient knowledge of likely death of the deceased in a free fight situation. Had he got intention to commit the murder of the deceased by inflicting such injury, he might have used the weapon with sufficient force and in that case, definitely it would have caused a deep injury causing fracture of skull. This court is bound to show some deference to this particular aspect while evaluating the facts and circumstances of this case at hand. [Para 30] [375-C-E]
4. In the case on hand, the death is not instantaneous, but the deceased died after sometime, due to hemorrhage. When several persons of the accused group wielding weapons attacked the deceased, it is surprising to see only two injuries, that too, two simple injuries alone are inflicted; of course, one such simple injury turns out to be fatal sometime later. This circumstance demonstrates that the appellant had no intention to cause death, though he has knowledge that the weapon used by him to inflict injury on the scalp of the deceased may cause death. But in the absence of intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence does not fall within the scope of Section 300, IPC but it will fall within Section 304, Part II of the IPC. Therefore, the appellants A-1, A-3 and A-4 are guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and not for the offence under Section 300 IPC. [Paras 31, 32] [375-E-G; 376-A]
Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, (2004) 11 SCC 395 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 395; Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar and Others etc, AIR 2017 SC 5428 – relied on.
Camilo Vaz v. State of Goa, (2000) 9 SCC 1: [2000] 2 SCR 1088 – referred to.
Modi, A Textbook
of Medical Jurisprudence and
th
Toxicology, 25 Edition- 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.