Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.626 OF 2015)
The State of Rajasthan ..Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the Judgement and Order of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
dated 23.05.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2009. The
High Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2019.04.10
16:22:35 IST
Reason:
convicted him under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code,
1
instead of Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court sentenced the
respondent to undergo 8 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/
and in default of payment of fine, to suffer one month simple
imprisonment. The State preferred this appeal against the said
decision.
3. A First Information Report was lodged by one Dalip
Kumar at Police Station Nimbaheda being FIR No.32/2008. It
was alleged that on 26.01.2008, when PW5 – Ms. Kailashi was
returning from the farm, in her presence, Kanhaiya Lal attacked
Raju (deceased) on his head by an axe. As per PW5, Raju fell
down and, on her cries, other persons reached the spot. The
accused ran away. That Raju succumbed to the injuries. After
concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the
chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC. That the accused pleaded not
guilty and therefore he came to be tried by the learned Sessions
Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
That the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses
including PW1 Dr. K. Asif, who issued the Injury Report (Exhibit
P1); PW5 Ms. Kailashi; PW15 Dr. Anees Ahmed, who performed
2
the PostMortem Report of the deceased. Through the witnesses
who were examined, the prosecution brought on record the
documentary evidence including the Injury Report (Exhibit P1) as
well as the PostMortem Report. That thereafter, the statement of
accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which
accused stated that he has been falsely implicated. No
evidence/witness was produced by the accused in defence. That
thereafter, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions
Court held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/ and in default to pay the
fine, to undergo further one month SI.
3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment
and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Sessions Court, the respondentoriginal accused preferred Appeal
before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2009. By
the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has partly
allowed the appeal preferred by the accused and has convicted
the accused under Section 304 Part I of the IPC instead of
Section 302 of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the State
3
against the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High
Court, converting the conviction of the accused to Section 304
Part I of the IPC in place of conviction under Section 302 of the
IPC.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
the State of Rajasthan has vehemently submitted that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has
materially erred in altering the conviction of the accused from
Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellantState that the main reason
given by the High Court while converting the conviction from
Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I is that the deceased
died because of a single injury caused on his head. It is
submitted that however the High Court has not, at all,
considered the fact that the accused gave the blow by an axe, a
deadly weapon and that too on the vital part of the body, i.e.
head. It is submitted that as per the medical evidence, the head
injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
It is submitted that, therefore, the High Court is not justified in
4
converting the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section
304 Part I of the IPC.
4.2 It is further submitted by learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellantState that another reason given by the
High Court is that there was an altercation between the accused
and the deceased and so it can be said that in the circumstances
of the case there was no intention to cause death on the part of
the accusedappellant. It is submitted that however the High
Court has failed to consider and appreciate/reappreciate the fact
that at the time when the incident had taken place, there was no
altercation at all and the altercation was before few hours and
not at the time when the incident had taken place.
4.3 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
State has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case and the injuries sustained by the deceased, it was a clear
case of murder within the definition of Section 300 of the IPC and
as such the learned Sessions Court rightly convicted the accused
for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It is submitted by
the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantState
that the Judgment of the High Court is manifestly perverse and is
5
totally contrary to the evidence on record and therefore the
interference of this Court is warranted
.
4.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the
decisions of this Court in the case of Arun Raj v. Union of India
(2010) 6 SCC 457; Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar v. State of
(2011) 10 SCC 604;
Gujarat Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad v. State
of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 592, and a recent decision of this
Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram alias Leela
Dhar dated 13.12.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1441 of 2013, it is
prayed to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned
Judgment and Order passed by the High Court and to restore the
Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Court.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent–original accused, while opposing the present appeal,
has vehemently submitted that while converting the conviction of
the accused from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of
the IPC, the High Court has given cogent reasons and has
considered the relevant circumstances and thereafter has come
to the conclusion that the intention of the accused cannot be said
6
to be to cause death of the deceased. It is submitted that the
High Court has considered the relevant circumstances and
thereafter has converted the conviction from Section 302 of the
IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC and therefore the same is not
required to be interfered with by this Court.
6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties at length.
6.1 We have considered in detail the Judgment and Order
passed by learned Sessions Court as well as the impugned
Judgment and Order passed by the High Court. The learned
Sessions Court convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 302 of the IPC. However, in an appeal preferred by the
accused, the High Court has converted the conviction from
Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC. While
doing so, the High Court has assigned the following reasons in
paragraph 15:
“15. In the circumstances of the case, it is proved
beyond doubt that Rajmal had died because of
single injury caused on his head by accused
appellant Kanhaiya Lal by an axe. It is also an
admitted fact that there was no repeated injury and
further more, it is also on record that in the
morning of the day of the incident, there was an
7
altercation between the accused and the deceased
and so it can be said that in the circumstances of
the case, that there was no intention to cause death
on the part of the accusedappellant but the act by
which the death was caused appears to have done
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
was likely to cause death and so his conviction
deserves to be altered from Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal
Code.”
6.2 Now so far as the main reason given by the High Court
while converting the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to
Section 304 Part I of the IPC i.e. it was a case of a single blow is
concerned, it is required to be noted that the deceased had died
because of single injury caused on his head by the accused by an
axe. The aforesaid can hardly be a ground to convert the
conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the
IPC.
6.3 In the case of Arun Raj (Supra) this Court observed
and held that there is no fixed rule that whenever a single blow is
inflicted, Section 302 would not be attracted. It is observed and
held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that nature of
weapon used and vital part of the body where blow was struck,
prove beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the accused to
8
cause death of deceased. It is further observed and held by this
Court that once these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant
whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows.
6.4 In the case of Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar (Supra),
the death was caused by single blow on head of the deceased
with a wooden pestle. It was found that the accused used pestle
with such force that head of the deceased was broken into pieces.
This Court considered whether the case would fall under Section
302 or Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. It is held by this
Court that the injury sustained by deceased, not only exhibits
intention of accused in causing death of victim, but also
knowledge of accused in that regard. It is further observed by this
Court that such attack could be none other than for causing
death of victim. It is observed that any reasonable person, with
any stretch of imagination can come to conclusion that such
injury on such a vital part of the body, with such a weapon,
would cause death.
6.5 A similar view is taken by this Court in the recent
decision in the case of (Supra) and
Leela Ram alias Leela Dhar
after considering catena of decisions of this Court on the issue on
9
hand i.e. in case of a single blow, whether a case falls under
section 302 or section 304 Part I or section 304 Part II, this Court
reversed the judgment of the High Court (in that case also the
judgment impugned was from the Rajasthan High Court) and
convicted the accused for the offence under section 302 of the
IPC. In the same decision, this Court also considered Exception 4
of Section 300 of the IPC and observed in paragraph 21 as
under :
“21. 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 premeditation; (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. ”
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the
reasoning given by the High Court while converting the conviction
from section 302 to Section 304 Part I, the reasons stated in
paragraph 15 of the impugned Judgement and Order, we are
firmly of the view that the judgment of the High Court is
manifestly perverse and is totally contrary to the evidence on
10
record. As per the deposition of PW1 Dr. K Asif, the deceased
sustained following injuries :
“1.Incised wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep and bone
visible on the middle part of the head.
2. abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the middle portion of
right leg.”
As per PW15 Dr. Anees Ahmed, a fracture of 4 cm length
was found in the parietal and occipital. He also stated that the
said head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. Thus, the accused used a deadly weaponaxe
on the vital part of the bodyhead, which proved to be fatal.
8. Another reason given by the High Court is that there
was no repeated injury. Aforesaid can hardly be a ground to
convert the conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part I of
the IPC. A single blow on the vital part of the body like head and
that too by deadly weaponaxe and used with force which proved
to be fatal, was sufficient to hold that it was a case of murder
within the definition of Section 300 of the IPC.
8.1 Another reason given by the High Court is that in the
morning on the day of the incident, there was an altercation
between the accused and the deceased and so it can be said that
11
in the circumstances of the case there was no intention to cause
death on the part of the accused but the fact by which the death
was caused appears to hold down that the intention of causing
such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The aforesaid is
contrary to the evidence on record. It is required to be noted that
it is not a case on behalf of the accused that there was an
altercation between the accused and the deceased at the time of
commission of the offence. The altercation, if any, had taken
place, in the morning and much earlier than the time of incident.
Merely because the altercation might have taken place much
earlier and not immediately prior to and/or at the time of
commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred that there was no
intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the
deceased. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground, the High Court has
committed a grave error in converting/altering the conviction
from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Thus, we are of the view that the judgement of the High Court is
manifestly perverse and is totally contrary to the evidence on
record. The High Court has committed a grave error in altering
the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to section 304 Part I of
12
the IPC and therefore the interference of this Court is warranted
to obviate a complete failure of interest of justice.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
we allow this appeal, Set aside the impugned Judgement of the
High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court convicting
the accused under Section 302 of the IPC. The respondent
accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life as per the
Judgement of the learned Trial Court. If the accused is already
released after undergoing the sentence as per the impugned
Judgment and Order passed by the High Court, the respondent
accused shall surrender forthwith to serve his sentence.
10. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the area concerned to seek
compliance.
……………………………….J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi; ……………………………….J.
April 10, 2019. [M.R. SHAH]
13