Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302, s. 304 and Exception IV to s.300 – Appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 IPC – C Appellant contended that it was a case of single injury, s. 302 IPC shall not be attracted and the case would fall u/s. 304-Part II IPC – Held: There is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury s. 302 IPC would not be attracted – It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case – In the instant case, PW-3 deposed that when the victim-deceased served extra beer to two persons D who came from outside, the accused became angry and told the victim why he was giving more beer to out-town people and not giving to local people, thereafter problem started and in that scuffle the accused took out the knife and stabbed from behind – As per Exception IV to. s.300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is E committed in a sudden fight in the heat of passion – Considering the facts and circumstances and the manner in which the incident started, s.302 IPC shall not be attracted – However, the accused inflicted blow with a weapon like knife and inflicted the injury on the victim on vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that such bodily injury was likely to cause death – Thus, the case would fall F u/s. 304-Part-I and not u/s. 304-Part II of the IPC. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single H blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence. [Para 7.2][296-D-F]
2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in various cases, more particularly the decisions on the single injury and the facts on hand, it is required to be considered whether the case would fall under Section 302 IPC or any other lesser offence. PW3, who is an eye-witness to the incident right from the beginning, deposed that when the deceased served extra beer to two persons who came from outside, the accused became angry and told the deceased why he is giving more beer to out-town people and not giving to local people and thereafter the problem started and in that scuffle the accused took out the knife and stabbed from behind. [Para 9][297-E-F]
3. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, this Court of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. [Para 10][297-H; 298-A-B]
4. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. [Para 11] [297-C-D]
Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319; Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 754;
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC
444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633; Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799 : [2010] 7 SCR 703; Bavisetti Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2008) 15 SCC
725 : [2008] 5 SCR 408; Jafel Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2019) 12 SCC 560 – relied on.
Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307; Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of
Maharashra (2000) 3 SCC 557 : [2000] 1 SCR 1155; Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 754;
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC
444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633; Arun Raj v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 457 : [2010] 7 SCR 1; Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799 : [2010] 7 SCR 703; Ashokkumar Nagabhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 604; Vijay Ramkrishan
Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 592; Som Raj v. State of H.P. (2013) 14 SCC 246 : [2013] 4 SCR 433; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalicharan (2019) 6 SCC 809; State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram (2019) 13 SCC 131; Ananta Kamilya v. State of West Bengal (2020) 2 SCC 511; Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) 15 SCC 622; State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal (2019) 5 SCC 639 : [2019] 5 SCR 569 – 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.