Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 304 and ss.330,354,355, 342 r/w. s.34 – Prosecution case was that the police officials took victim into custody in order to extract information regarding a ‘loot’ in a hotel – It was alleged that police officials caused injuries to the victim in furtherance of extracting confession which led to his death in police custody – Trial Court acquitted all accused police officials (A-1 to 10) u/s. 302 of IPC but convicted them u/ss.330, 354, 355,
342 r/w.34 of IPC – High Court acquitted (A-1 to 9) of the offences punishable u/ss.354,355, 342 r/w.34 of IPC, however, upheld their conviction u/s.330 of IPC and acquitted A-10 of all the offences – Consequently, accused (A-1 to 9) were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s.330 of IPC – In appeal before Supreme Court , State sought to press for charges u/s.304 Part-II of IPC, in case s.302 of IPC was not made out – Meanwhile A-1 passed away – Held: Both Courts below had taken a concurrent view that the crime did not amount to culpable homicide as the cause of death was asphyxiation and there was nothing on record to prove that the injuries were the cause of the death – It was on record that injuries noted in the post mortem indicated that the nature of these injuries were not grievous – Rather, it was a case wherein victim-deceased died of asphyxiation due to contents of his vomit, hours later from the time when the injury was inflicted, which was an independent reason for cause of death – The casual link between the injuries caused to the deceased by the erring officers and the death was not connected, therefore, s.299 of IPC not attracted – Accordingly, there is no question of attracting s.302 or s.304 IPC – As police in this case are violators of law, who had primary responsibility to protect and uphold law, therefore, the term of sentence of A-2 to A-9 modified to the maximum imposable period u/s.330 of IPC i.e., seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.299 – Culpable homicide – Held: Causation is an important ingredient to determine as to whether a person commits culpable homicide in the first place – Causation simply means “causal relationship between conduct and result” – s.299 indicates two types of causations, one the factual causation and the second the legal causation – Coming to the factual causation, it is a matter of fact as to whether the action of the accused caused death of the person – But the second aspect concerns itself, whether the death can be sufficiently imputed to the accused’s action as being responsible legally.
Maxim – Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – discussed.
Doctrines/Principles – Principle of ‘Take their victim as they find them’ – discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a matter of record that both the courts below have taken a concurrent view that the crime in question did not amount to culpable homicide as the cause of death was asphyxiation and there was nothing on record to prove that the injuries were the cause of the death. It is well settled that in order to be called a murder, it needs to be culpable homicide in the first place, that is to say all murders are culpable homicides, but the vice versa may not true in all cases. [Para 16] [664-H; 665-A-B]
2. Under Section 299 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 causation is an important ingredient to determine as to whether a person commits culpable homicide in the first place. Causation simply means “causal relationship between conduct and result”. Now, what need to be assessed is whether the contentions of the parties could stand the scrutiny of the law of the land. Section 299 indicates two types of causations, one the factual causation and the second the legal causation. Coming to the factual causation, it is a matter of fact as to whether the action of the accused caused death of the person. But the second aspect concerns itself, whether the death can be sufficiently imputed to the accused’s action as being responsible legally. This case turns on the second leg of causal relationship wherein, could the injuries caused by the police officers be sufficiently imputed to be the cause of death of victim herein? [Para 17] [665-D-F]
3. It is settled under common law wherein the principle of ‘take their victim as they find them’ is followed, meaning ‘A person who does any act/omission which hastens the death of another person who, when the act is done or the omission is made, is labouring under some disorder or disease arising from another cause, is deemed to have killed that other person.’ This principle has been expressly ingrained under the Explanation 1 to the Section 299 of IPC. Without going into details on this aspect as this is not a case of multiple causation, rather it is a case wherein the deceased died of asphyxiation due to contents of his vomit, hours later from the time when the injury was inflicted, which is an independent reason for cause of death herein. [Para 18] [665F-H; 666-A]]
4. The various other circumstances which dis-associate the cause of death to the actions of the appellant officers are available. It is on record that the injuries noted in the postmortem report clearly indicate that the nature of these injuries were not grievous. The head injury noted does not show any internal fracture to the skull bone. Therefore, when, on facts, it is concurrently inferred by the courts below that the cause of death was due to asphyxiation, there are no reasons for accepting a different factual inference herein, as the same is not perverse. [Para 19] [666-B-C]
5. The causal link between the injuries caused to the deceased by the erring officers and the death is not connected, therefore, Section 299 of IPC is not attracted. Accordingly, there is no question of attracting Section 302 or 304 of IPC. [Para 21] ]666-F-G]
6. From the facts portrayed it is clear that the police knew the identity of the deceased was different from the person, they wanted to investigate initially. The manner in which the deceased and his family members were taken into custody reflects pure act of lawlessness and does not befit the conduct of the Police. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment of threeyear imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court under Section 330 of IPC, would be grossly insufficient and dis-proportional. It is appropriate to increase the term of sentence to maximum imposable period under Section 330 of IPC i.e., seven years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine imposed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the sentence modified to this limited extent. [Paras 30 and 34] [669-G-H; 67-C-D]
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630; Mahtab Singh v. State of U.P, (2009)
13 SCC 670: [2009] 5 SCR 848; State of M.P. v.
Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 44 ; State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 1917 : [1982] 1 SCR
360; Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC
455 : [ 2007] 8 SCR 891; Ganesh v. State of Karnataka (2008) 17 SCC 152 : [2009] 5 SCR 848; Jayaseelan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 12 SCC 275 : [2009] 3 SCR 200; State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2018 decided by the Supreme Court on 01.08.2018; Soman v. State of Kerala (2013) 11 SCC 382 : [2012] 11 SCR 1155; Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 : [2012] 1 SCR 145 – referred to.
R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446 (CA) – referred to.
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes (27th Ed.) – 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.