Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and s.304 – Prosecution case that Sub-Inspector (SI) motioned a truck, driven by the accused/appellant, to stop – Instead of applying brakes, the accused tried to speed away, upon which SI boarded the truck from its left side – It was alleged that the appellant warned SI not to do so and that he would get killed – Nevertheless, SI boarded the truck – Appellant pushed him, as a result of which SI fell off the truck and he was run over by the rear wheels of the truck – SI died – Appellant fled with the truck – However, later he was arrested and charged with committing murder – The Trial Court convicted the appellant as charged and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life – The High Court confirmed his conviction u/s.302 IPC – On appeal, held: No motive or animus against the deceased was proved – A general expression of the extreme threat, (without any real intention of carrying it, since the truck was not laden with any contraband or was not used for any illegal or suspect activity), cannot be given too much weight– It was established that SI did fall off the truck, which continued its movement, perhaps with greater rapidity – However, this does not prove that the appellant, with deliberate intent, drove over the deceased and he knew that the deceased would have fallen inside, so that the truck’s rear tyre would have gone over him – The act resulting in SI’s death was not pre-meditated – The instinctive reaction of the appellant was to resist; he disproportionately reacted, which resulted in the deceased being thrown off the vehicle – Such act of throwing off the deceased and driving on without pausing, appears to have been in the heat of passion, or rage – On facts, the appellants should be convicted for the offence punishable under the first part of s.304 IPC, as he had the intention of causing such bodily harm, to the deceased, as was likely to result in his death – The conviction recorded by the courts below, is altered to one u/s.304 Part I, IPC – The sentence too is therefore modified – Instead of rigorous imprisonment for life, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On the facts of this case, there can be no serious dispute that the prosecution established the main elements of its factual allegations: the receipt of information of the breaking of the forest barrier; positioning of the deceased Sub-Inspector (SI), with a posse of policemen on the road; the identification of the appellant, as one who drove the truck; gesturing by the deceased to the appellant to stop the truck; the latter slowing down the vehicle; attempt by the SI to board the vehicle, and his being shaken off the truck, on account of the driver refusing to stop, and, on the other hand, speeding the vehicle. Even if the prosecution version that the appellant having threatened to kill the deceased were to be accepted, one cannot set much store by it, because no motive or no animus against the deceased was proved. A general expression of the extreme threat, (without any real intention of carrying it, since the truck was not laden with any contraband or was not used for any illegal or suspect activity), cannot be given too much weight. What is of consequence, is that upon the deceased falling off the truck, the appellant drove on. Here, the prosecution established that the truck was driven, without heed; however, it did not establish the intention of the driver (i.e. the appellant) to run over the deceased. This point, though fine, is not without significance, because it goes to the root of the nature of the intention. Did the appellant intend to kill SI? This Court thinks not. Clearly, he knew that SI had fallen off; he proceeded to drive on. However, whether the deceased fell in the direction of the rear tyre, of the truck, or whether he fell clear of the vehicle, has not been proved; equally it is not clear from the evidence, that the appellant knew that he did. What was established, however was that he did fall off the truck, which continued its movement, perhaps with greater rapidity. This does not prove that the appellant, with deliberate intent, drove over the deceased and he knew that the deceased would have fallen inside, so that the truck’s rear tyre would have gone over him. In these circumstances, it can however be inferred that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause SI Tiwari’s death. [Para 14][174-G-H; 175-A-E]
2. All the essential elements show that the appellant did not have any previous quarrel with the deceased; there was lack of animus. The act resulting in SI’s death was not pre-meditated. Though it cannot be said that there was a quarrel, caused by sudden provocation, if one considers that the deceased tried to board the truck, and was perhaps in plain clothes, the instinctive reaction of the appellant was to resist; he disproportionately reacted, which resulted in the deceased being thrown off the vehicle. Such act of throwing off the deceased and driving on without pausing, appears to have been in the heat of passion, or rage. Therefore, it is held that the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was not appropriate. [Para 15][175-F-G]
3. Section 304 IPC Code provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (under Section 299 IPC). In the facts of the present case, this court is of the opinion that the appellants should be convicted for the offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC, as he had the intention of causing such bodily harm, to the deceased, as was likely to result in his death, as it did. Having regard to these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the courts below, is altered to one under Section 304 Part I, IPC. The sentence too is therefore modified - instead of rigorous imprisonment for life, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. [Para 16][176-AC]
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr. (1976) 4 SCC 382 : [1977] 1 SCR 601; Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraju Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR
633 – relied on.
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.