Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Prosecution case that appellant/accused and the victim were cousins – On the afternoon of 28.02.2012, when the victim was getting his land levelled through a JCB machine, the appellants (A-1 and A-2) reached the place and attacked him – It was alleged that A-1 was armed with an axe and he attacked the victim on the head – Against A-2, the allegation was that he was armed with an axe and had assaulted the victim on the legs – Regarding A-3, the grandson of A-1 and son of A-2, the allegation was that he went to the spot and caught hold of the victim – Victim sustained several injuries including head injuries – He was taken to the hospital and was examined by a doctor (PW11) – As serious head injuries were involved, the victim was operated by another doctor (PW15) – However, the victim could not survive and died on 22.03.2012 – PW14, doctor conducted the post-mortem and, in his report, (Ex. P-28), stated that death was caused by injuries sustained by the victim on the head – Trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment, for the offence of murder, and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s.323 IPC – High Court acquitted A-3 on both counts, but affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants (A1 and A2) – Held: The nature of the attack by the appellants and the quality of eyewitness testimony of prosecution witnesses, especially PW1 to PW5, cannot be doubted – The circumstance that most of the witnesses were related to the deceased does not per se exclude their testimony – Appellants were armed, a fact which shows pre-meditation on their part – Appellants attacked victim on the head, which is a vital part of the body, thus taking undue advantage of their situation – Lapse of time i.e. victim dying after 20 days, would not per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the offender’s liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The circumstance that most of the witnesses were related to the deceased does not per se exclude their testimony. Although PW1 is the deceased’s daughter, that is insufficient to doubt the veracity of what she recounted during the trial, which is that she saw the appellants attack her father with axes. She tried to intervene and save the deceased, upon which she was also given axe blows on her leg. There is no explanation on the part of the appellants as to why the witness should depose falsely; nor is there any explanation as to how she could have received her injuries. Most importantly, her testimony is corroborated by PW2, PW3 and PW4. [Para 14][249-D-F]
2. To determine the culpability of appellants whether they are guilty for the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302, or whether they are criminally liable under the less severe Section 304, IPC, several previous judgements of this Court may be relied upon. [Paras 15 and 16][249-G-H]
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [1958] SCR 1495; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr. [1977] SCR 1 601 and Pulicherla Nagaraju @
Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633 – relied on.
3. The requirement of Section 300 IPC thirdly is fulfilled if the prosecution proves that the accused inflicted an injury which would been sufficient to have resulted in death of the victim. The determinative fact would be the intention to cause such injury and what was the degree of probability (gravest, medium, or the lowest degree) of death which determines whether the crime is culpable homicide or murder. [Para 18][256-E]
4. The case law on the issue of the nature of injury being so dangerous as to result in death (Section 300 fourthly), have emphasised on the accused’s disregard to the consequences of the injury, and an element of callousness to the result, which denotes or signifies the intention. [Para 19][256-F] State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Prasad, [1968] 2 SCR
522 and Santosh S/o. Shankar Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 7 SCC 641 : [2015] 4 SCR 962– relied on.
5. In the present case, there is no difficulty in accepting the concurrent findings that are firstly, the appellants were aggressors; secondly, they attacked the deceased, with axes; thirdly, the deceased was unarmed; fourthly, during the attack, the victim’s daughter, PW1 reached the spot, and tried to dissuade the appellants; fifthly, the appellants continued their assault on the victim and also attacked the witness with an axe; sixthly, since three injuries sustained by the appellant, were on the head, he fell down; seventhly, the victim was rushed to the hospital, and had to be shifted to another speciality hospital, for surgery. Eighthly, the deceased was not able to record his statement; he was never discharged and died in the hospital, after 20 days. Lastly, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem (PW-14), stated that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object, and death of the deceased was due to cardio respiratory failure “as a result of multiple injuries on his body and their complications”. Apart from the head, there were several other injuries, in the form of abrasions, contusions on the elbow, the lower back, fracture of rib cage, etc. [Para 20][257-F-H; 258-A-B]
6. Then, the issue is whether in this case the factual matrix is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300. It is clear that the testimonies of the two important eyewitnesses, PW1 and PW2, establish that when the deceased was levelling the septic tank on his property, the accused/appellants started abusing him; he asked them not to. The appellants, who were in the adjacent property, climbed the wall, entered the deceased’s house, and attacked him with axes. These facts do not constitute a “sudden quarrel”, given that the appellants abused the deceased, in an unprovoked manner, and then they went to where he was, armed with axes, and assaulted him. Arguendo, even if the facts are assumed to disclose that there was a sudden fight, it cannot be said that the accused failed to act in a cruel manner, or did not take undue advantage. This is because they were armed: a fact which shows pre-meditation on their part. Moreover, they both attacked the victim on the head, which is a vital part of the body, thus taking undue advantage of their situation. It is also, likewise, not clear whether the deceased said anything to the appellants which triggered their ire, leading to loss of self-control as to result in “grave and sudden provocation”. [Paras 22 and 24][258-D-G; 260-B]
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1962 SCR Suppl. (1) 567- relied on.
7. Several judgments emphasize that a lapse of time, (between the attack and death) would not per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the offender’s liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. There can be no stereotypical assumption or formula that where death occurs after a lapse of some time, the injuries (which might have caused the death), the offence is one of culpable homicide. Every case has its unique fact situation. However, what is important is the nature of injury, and whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death. [Para 25 and 26][260-D, E-F]
Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, [1992] 3 SCR 921; Patel Hiralal Joitaram v. State of Gujarat 2002 (1) SCC
22 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 378 and Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi, 1975 (3) SCC 831 : [1975] 2 SCR 520 – 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.