38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Judiciary

Section 302 Of IPC Can be Attracted in a Single Stab Injury as Well: SC [READ JUDGMENT]

By VANDANA KOTHARI      10 September, 2020 02:38 PM      0 Comments
Supreme Court IPC Single Stab Injury

A criminal appeal was filed by an accused who was convicted for the offense under Section 302 of IPC in a judgment passed by Madurai Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras. 

The question which was to be administered was whether the accused is rightly convicted under Section 302 or is to be convicted for any other milder offense viz. Section 304 Part II IPC and whether single stab injury can attract Section 302 or not.  

The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, and Justice MR Shah in their judgment stated that “It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 of IPC is ruled out.”

Learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that “as it is a case of a single blow, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted.” Further, it was submitted that “even the so-called motive alleged for the incident is prior to four months of the incident in question and, therefore, as such, the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased.”

In support of his contention, he relied upon the two judgments of Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307 and Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 SCC 557. The ld. Counsel for the accused prayed to convert the conviction from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 of IPC. 

Opposing the contentions of Ld. Counsel for accused, Ld. Counsel for State said that there is no absolute proposition of law laid down by this Court in any of the decisions that in case of a single blow, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted.

He further submitted that the court in its various decision has laid down that number of injuries is irrelevant; it is not always the determining factor for ascertaining the intention. As held by the court itself, it is the nature of the injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury which are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not.

In support of his contentions he relied upon various judgments including Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319; Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. the State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322; Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444; Bavisetti Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2008) 15 SCC 725; Arun Raj v. Union of India. (2010) 6 SCC 457; Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799; Ashok Kumar 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; 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. 

The court after listening to both the counsel, referred to some judgments to make it clear whether single blow attracts Section 302 of IPC or not and then stated that “it emerges that 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 the 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 blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out.”

On the point of motive contended by the counsel of the accused the court said that “motive is not an explicit requirement under the Penal Code, though “motive” may be helpful in proving the case of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence.”

Further referring to a judgment the court said “the absence of motive does not disperse a prosecution case if the prosecution succeeds in proving the same. The motive is always in the mind of the person authoring the incident. Motive not being apparent or not being proved only requires deeper scrutiny of the evidence by the courts while coming to a conclusion. When there is definite evidence proving an incident and eye­witness account prove the role of accused, absence in proving the motive by the prosecution does not affect the prosecution case.” 

However, on the question as to whether a single injury attracts Section 302 of IPC or not the court said “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 the 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, we are of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted.”

For the question whether it falls under Sec 304 Part II of IPC or not the court laid down that “Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like a 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.”

The court allowed the appeal in part and said that “The accused is held guilty for the offense punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo 8 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/­ and, in default, to further undergo one-year R.I.”

 

[READ JUDGMENT] 



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

a-critique-of-the-supreme-courts-adventurism-for-lgbtqia-rights
Trending Legal Insiders
Overreaching Jurisdiction: A critique of the Supreme Court's adventurism for LGBTQIA rights

In its over-enthusiasm to protect LGBTQIA+ rights, has the Supreme Court exceeded its constitutional mandate under Article 142? A Delhi University research scholar evaluates the theme.

22 April, 2024 10:48 AM
new-criminal-laws-watershed-moment-for-society-cji
Trending Legal Insiders
New criminal laws watershed moment for society: CJI [Read Inaugural Remarks]

CJI Chandrachud hails new criminal laws as a watershed moment, marking a significant overhaul for the justice system, emphasizing adaptation and technology's role.

22 April, 2024 11:26 AM

TOP STORIES

burden-to-prove-dishonest-damage-to-electric-meter-is-for-electricity-theft-is-on-the-prosecution-says-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
Burden to prove dishonest damage to electric meter is for electricity theft, is on the prosecution: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court has held that the burden to prove that a person has ‘dishonestly’ damaged an electric meter to commit electricity theft is on the prosecution.

17 April, 2024 05:41 PM
pil-filed-by-ashwini-kumar-upadhyay-in-sc-for-yr-bachelor-of-law-degree-after-class
Trending Judiciary
PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in SC for 3-yr Bachelor of Law degree after Class XII

PIL by Ashwini Kumar in SC seeks to shorten law degree to 3 years post-Class XII, citing current 5-year span as irrational.

18 April, 2024 11:21 AM
centre-sets-up-high-powered-committee-to-suggest-measures-to-end-discrimination-against-queer-community
Trending Executive
Centre sets up high-powered committee to suggest measures to end discrimination against queer community [Read Order]

Centre forms committee to end discrimination against the queer community, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, following a Supreme Court directive.

18 April, 2024 12:11 PM
after-karnataka-hc-delhi-hc-sets-aside-government-circular-banning-23-ferocious-dog-breeds
Trending Judiciary
After Karnataka HC, Delhi HC sets aside Government circular banning 23 'ferocious' dog breeds [Read Judgement]

After Karnataka High Court, the Delhi High Court has set aside a Government circular banning 23 'ferocious' dog breeds.

18 April, 2024 01:06 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email