Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 995-996 of 2002
PETITIONER:
State of Karnataka
RESPONDENT:
Khatu @ Hanumantharaya
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/07/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P.P. NAOLEKAR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered
by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. By the
impugned judgment while believing the evidence of witnesses
and the dying declaration recorded, the High Court was of the
view that the conviction of the accused respondent was one
punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short the ’IPC’) and not under Section 302 IPC. Since
the evidence of the witnesses and the dying declaration have
been accepted the only question that remains to be
considered is whether the High Court was justified in holding
that the case related to Section 304 Part II and not Section
302 IPC.
2. The State of Karnataka questions correctness of the
judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned judgment.
3. The only reason indicated by the High Court is as under:
"The entire narration at Ex.P.10 would point
out that the accused got wild when the
deceased questioned his wife, who is the sister
of the accused. This shows that there is no
pre-mediation or a motive for the accused to
kill the deceased. On seeing the admonition
the accused lost control and chased his
brother-in-law. But by doing this, he had the
knowledge that this action would definitely end
up in the death of his brother in law. The
knowledge of his action is clearly established
from the material on record. Therefore, the
offence do not fall under Section 304 IPC i.e.
culpable homicide amounting to murder, but it
is an offence falling under Section 304 Part II
IPC."
4. The reasoning of the High Court is patently erroneous
and does not disclose the application of mind. It is not
conceivable as to why the person would chase another who
had not committed any wrong to him and then set him on fire.
The dying declaration goes to show that the accused got wild
when the deceased questioned his wife who is the sister of the
accused. The High Court found that there was no pre
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
meditation to kill the accused and on seeing the admonition
the accused lost control and chased the deceased and set him
to fire by pouring kerosene on him. The High Court was of the
view that the accused had knowledge that his action is
definitely end up in the death of the deceased. On these
observations the High Court held that the case was covered
under Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
5. The order impugned is very confusing, does not disclose
application of mind and it is not clear as to why the High
Court felt that the case is covered under Section 304 Part II
IPC and not under Section 302. Since practically no reason
has been indicated to justify the conclusion the order of the
High Court is clearly unsustainable. We set aside the order of
the High Court. The appeals are allowed and the respondent is
convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life.