Penal Code, 1860: s.304 Part II – Conviction of respondent under s.302 IPC – High Court modified his conviction to one under s.304 Part II – Prosecution case was that three persons including the respondent attacked the victim-deceased and caused serious injuries to him – Respondent inflicted an axe injury on the skull of the deceased which caused his death – Accused persons were tried for murder – Trial court convicted the respondent on the basis of depositions of PW-1 to PW-4, the medical evidence and recovery of blood stained axe at the behest of respondent, while acquitted the other two persons – High Court allowed the appeal of respondent in part and convicted him of an offence under s.304 Part II – State’s appeal – Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses was to the effect that the respondent was the author of the injury and wielded the axe, as a result of which death was the immediate and natural cause – PW-4 was an injured eye-witness and, therefore, his presence was established beyond all reasonable doubt – The injury which was caused to the deceased was [within the meaning of s.300 (fourthly)] of a nature that the person committing the act knew that it was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – In such circumstances, the judgment of High Court was manifestly perverse and totally contrary to the evidence on the record – Conviction of respondent by trial court under s.302 is restored. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. PW-2, who is the complainant, has deposed to the genesis of the incident. According to him, the deceased was seized upon by the respondent (together with the two co-accused). The respondent, inflicted an axe blow on the skull of the deceased. The evidence of PW-2 on the involvement of the respondent found abundant corroboration in the deposition of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. PW-4 was an injured eye-witness. His presence was thus established in any event beyond all reasonable doubt. From the evidence of these witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, it emerged that the respondent inflicted an axe blow in the centre of the skull of the deceased. The evidence of PW-5 was clear in indicating that the injury was caused with the help of a sharp edged weapon. PW-5 also stated that the cranium and spinal cord and the parietal bone was fractured. The injury on the skull, led to coma and was the cause of death. Coupled with these circumstances was the recovery of the weapon of offence which was found to be blood stained. [Para 11] [626-G-H; 627-A-B]
2. The High Court proceeded entirely on the basis of surmise in opining that the death was caused without premeditation and on the spur of the moment. In arriving at that inference, the High Court has evidently ignored the evidence, bearing upon the nature of the incident, the consistent account that it was the respondent who had inflicted the blow, the weapon of offence and the vital part of the body on which the injury was inflicted. The fact that the co-accused were acquitted by the Trial Court, was no reason to doubt the testimony of all the eyewitnesses which implicated the respondent. The death was attributable to the assault by the respondent on the deceased, during the course of the incident. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the injury which was caused to the deceased was [within the meaning of Section 300 (Fourthly)] of a nature that the person committing the act knew that it was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Under Exception 4, culpable homicide is not murder if the stipulations contained in that provision are fulfilled. They are: (i) that the act was committed without pre-meditation; (ii) that there was a sudden fight; (iii) the act must be in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; and (iv) the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The deceased was unarmed when he was seized upon and assaulted by the respondent. In these circumstances, the judgment of the High Court was manifestly perverse and was totally contrary to the evidence on the record. The conviction of the respondent by the trial court under section 302 of the Penal Code is restored. [Paras 13, 15-18] [633-E-G; 634-B-F]
Mahesh Balmiki v. State of MP (2000) 1 SCC 319 ; Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 421 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 202 ; Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 754 ; Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of AP (2006) 11 SCC 444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633 ;
Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A P (2010) 9 SCC 799 : [2010] 7 SCR 703 ; Som Raj v. State of H P (2013) 14 SCC 246 : [2013] 4 SCR 433 – 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.