Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Khanderao Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 2013
Author: A.V.Nirgude
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, A.V.Nirgude
1
CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 1999
Sunil s/o Khanderao Gaikwad,
Age 21 years, Student,
R/o. Near Bus Stand Kalam,
Tal. Kalam, District Osmanabad. ... APPELLANT
(Original Accused No.1)
V E R S U S
1.
The State of Maharashtra,
( Copy to be served on the
Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Judicature of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad. )
2. Shri Dattatraya Devidas Gaikwad,
Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Kalam, Tal. Kalam,
Dist. Osmanabad. ... RESPONDENTS
-----
Mr. S.P.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. V.H.Dighe, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 / State Authority.
Mr. Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-----
A N D
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 414 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra,
(Through Kallam Police Station,
Dist. Osmanabad. ) ... APPELLANT
(Original Complainant)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 :::
2
CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99
V E R S U S
1. Sunil Khanderao Gaikwad,
Age : 20 yrs.
2 Lahu Mahadeo Parve,
Age : 20 yrs,
Both R/o. Kallam,
Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. ... RESPONDENTS
-----
Mr. V.H.Dighe, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant / State Authority.
Mr. S.P.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. A.B.Tele, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL and
A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH SUBMISSIONS ARE HEARD : 26th March, 2013.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 15th April, 2013.
JUDGMENT:[ PER A.V.NIRGUDE, J. ] 1 Both these appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 1st September, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.41 of 1999.
2 The parties to the appeals would be referred to as their original designation before the trial Court. The sessions case was filed against two accused. They were charged under Section 302 and 307 read ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 3 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge of the trial Court vide impugned judgment held that Accused No.1 was guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause. The learned Sessions Judge found Accused No.2 guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 On one hand, Accused No.1 - Sunil filed Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 1999 challenging his conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and on the other hand, the State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No.414 of 1999 challenging the acquittal of both the accused.
4 The facts of the prosecution case, in short, can be stated as under:
The incident took place on 22nd September, 1998 at Kallam, District Osmanabad. On that day, at about 05:30 am, PW-5 Jwala alongwith PW-4 Mirza went to the Zilla Parishad ground for exercise.
Accused No.1 came there and told them not to use the school ground for exercise after 06:00 am because he was conducting his Karate training class there. Thereupon, PW-4 Mirza assaulted Accused No.1. In ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 4 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 retaliation, Accused No.1 assaulted him. PW-5 Jwala and one Kishor separated this scuffle. Soon thereafter, PW-4 and 5 went to the house of Sachin, the victim in this case, and narrated him the entire incident. Then Sachin and PW-4 and 5 went towards Rangila Chowk in Kallam town. The accused duo came to them from behind and challenged Sachin and the witnesses that they would test, who is physically more powerful by holding a Karate match out side the town. Apparently, Sachin and his companions, PW-4 and 5 accepted this challenge and these five persons then went towards I.T.I. College which was out side the town. In an agricultural field near the college, PW-4 Mirza took out his vest and took position of fight.
Thereupon, the accused duo took out Guptees, which were hidden in their shirts. One blow of Gupti was delivered on PW-4 Mirza's person. He sustained injury on his back, but ran away from the spot. Then, Accused No.1 launched Gupti attack on Sachin. After 2-3 blows, Sachin sustained injury on his chest by Gupti and fell down. On the other hand, Accused No.2 Lahu assaulted PW-5. PW-5 had instrument of Karate called "Non Chap". Using this instrument, he warded off blows of Gupti given by Accused No.2. Accused No.2, however, delivered one blow of his Gupti on the leg of Sachin, who was lying on the ground. Thereafter, the accused ran away. PW-5 Jwala then went to Sachin's father and narrated the incident. Sachin's father came to the spot, found Sachin lying in injured condition, went to the police station and informed them about the incident.
The police immediately took Sachin to the hospital, but the Medical Officer declared him dead. Thereafter, Sachin's father lodged a complainant and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 5 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 offence was registered.
5 The learned counsel appearing for Accused No.1 asserted that Accused No.1 deserved acquittal because; firstly, the case of the prosecution is unbelievable and secondly, because this was a case of private defence. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Accused No.2 asserted that assuming the incident is believed, Accused No.2 cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 or 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor asserted that this was a case of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the submissions of all the sides and after going through the record, following questions arose for our consideration.
I. Whether the prosecution could prove that the accused launched attack with Guptees on unarmed victims namely Sachin, PW - 4 and 5?
II. Whether Accused No.2 shared common intention to commit culpable homicide of victim Sachin?
III. If the answer to question No.2 is in negative, whether Accused No.1's act of culpable homicide amounted to murder.
6 Point No. I : The prosecution examined nine witnesses out of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 6 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 which, PW-4 and 5 are eye witnesses, who were also victims of the assault. PW-3 is Sachin's father (Dattatraya Devidas Gaikwad), who lodged this complaint. PW-1 is the Medical Officer, who performed autopsy on Sachin's dead body and submitted his postmortem report.
7 Let us first deal with these four witnesses. PW-3 Dattatraya Devidas Gaikwad supported the prosecution case. He stated that on the day of incident at about 06:30 am, PW-4 and 5 came his house to meet his son Sachin and took him away. He said that thereafter, he learnt from a neighbour that there could be a quarrel between two groups including his son Sachin. However, this witness did not take this information very seriously and he started his work. After sometime, PW-5 Jwala came to him and told him that his son sustained knife injury at the hands of the accused and he should help him. He said that he took Jeep at the scene of occurrence and saw his son Sachin lying in agricultural field. He said that he thereupon went to the Police Station Kallam. He said that the Medical Officer declared Sachin dead and thereafter, he lodged his complaint. His evidence has gone almost unchallenged.
8 PW-4 Mirza, however, did not support the prosecution case and therefore, we do not consider it necessary to discuss his deposition.
9 PW-5 Jwala supported the prosecution case and stated that he as well as victim Sachin were well trained in Karate. He said that there occurred a quarrel between PW-4 Mirza and Accused No.1 on account of running training class for Karate. Because of this quarrel, they were not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 7 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 on talking terms. He said that on 22nd September, 1998 at about 05:30 am, he went to PW-4 Mirza and took him to Zilla Parishad school ground for exercise. One Kishor was also present there. He said that at that time, Accused No.1 came there and asked PW-4 Mirza not to use the school ground for exercise. Mirza thereupon assaulted Accused No.1 and Accused No.1 also gave 2-3 kick blows to PW-4 Mirza. He said that he along with Kishor separated the scuffle. He said that he and PW-4 Mirza then went to Sachin and narrated the incident to him. He then said that all three of them went to Rangila Chow where he said that the accused came from behind. He said that the accused then said to them that they should go to I.T.I. School to see who was more powerful. Accordingly, all five of them went to I.T.I. School. He said that PW-4 Mirza then removed his vest and stood in a position of fight. He said that both the accused then took out Guptees, which were affixed to their waists. He said that Accused No.1 then gave blows of Guptees on the person of PW-4 Mirza. He said that PW-4 Mirza sustained injuries and then rant away. He said that Accused No.1 then assaulted Sachin and Accused No.2 assaulted him. He said, he was possessing Karate instrument by name "Non Chap". He said that he could defend himself with the use of the said Karate instrument. But, in the meantime, he said Accused No.1 gave blow of Gupti on the person of Sachin. He said Sachin could warded off the blow with his hands. He said Accused No.1 continued to assault and then gave one more blow of Gupti on Sachin's chest. Sachin sustained injury on his chest and fell down. He said that thereafter, Accused No.2 Lahu gave one Gupti blow on the leg of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 8 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 Sachin. He said that he tried to intervene, but, Accused No.1 delivered kick blow and tried to assault him with Gupti. He said that he could avoid the Gupti blows. He said thereafter, the accused ran away. In the cross-
examination, this witness admitted that a Chapter proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed against him. The defence also suggested to him that victim Sachin was armed with knife at the time of the incident and that it was Sachin, who started the fight using knife . But, he did not admit this suggestion. He also did not admit the suggestion that he too had a weapon in his possession. This way, the defence tried to suggest that it was Sachin, who was more aggressive during the incident. It was he, who started the fight with knife and so, he was attacked in self defence and so the accused attacked him in self defence.
10 In view of this cross-examination, it is clear that the accused admitted the incident. They admitted that they suggested to the prosecution witnesses as well as Sachin that they would go to I.T.I. College for having a fight to decide as to who was more powerful and skilled in Karate. The only difference between the stories is the suggestion that the victim Sachin was armed with a knife. We find no material on record to accept this defence. No knife was recovered from the scene of occurrence, which could be connected to victim Sachin. Neither the accused sustained any knife injury during the fight. On the other hand, Sachin as well as Mirza sustained injuries by sharp edged weapon.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 9CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 11 The learned Judge of the lower Court committed a grave error in appreciating the defence. He placed reliance on the contents of the police report filed for initiating Chapter proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As said above, this witness admitted that police initiated chapter proceedings against him. The report has come on record through the deposition of the Investigation Officer. But the learned Judge of the trial Court could not have read the contents of this report. In this report, the police suggested that Sachin, at the time of incident, was armed with weapon. This report was not an eye witness account. It was based on hearsay information received by the police. So, the contents of this report unless properly proved through an eye witness are useless for defence. Even on preponderance of probability, this material is not useful for the defence. In our view, the defence ought to have brought on record evidence, which would prove on probability that the victim Sachin had a knife at the time of incident and he wielded it or used it as assault weapon.
This could have been done by the accused by entering into witness box.
There was admittedly no other eye witness to the incident. One of them, could have entered witness box for deposing as to what had happened at the time of incident. If this was not done, we are afraid, the defence would not be able to prove even on probability that the accused caused injuries to Sachin and Mirza while defending themselves. As far as we know and a judicial notice can also be taken a fact that martial art by name Karate, is mainly useful for defending oneself. It is generally practice without any weapon. In this martial art, even an armed attack can be warded off ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 10 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 successfully without using any weapon of assault. So, if these two groups had agreed to have a decisive fight, there was no possibility of use of any weapon. On the contrary, it is made clear from the record that the accused came to the victims with a proposal to have a fight and they concealed Guptees under their shirts. They were thus, fully armed and prepared to cause bodily injury with the help of sharp edged weapons. This was against the principles of martial art karate and therefore, the victim parties were taken by surprise. In view of this, we answer point No.I in affirmative.
12 Point No. II : This point would decide as to whether Accused No.2 committed culpable homicide though his individual act did not cause death of the victim. On perusal of the evidence and cross-
examination, we are of the firm view that Accused No.2 did not share intention to cause injury to victim Sachin almost throughout the fight.
Accused No.2 did not inflict any blow of his weapon on vital part of Sachin's body. On the other hand, it was Accused No.1, who tried to inflict two blows on the chest of the victim. While he was doing this, Accused No.2 was trying to inflict injury to PW-5 Jwala. To his good fortune, he did not cause any injury by his sharp edged weapon to this witness. At last when Sachin fell down with injury to his chest, Accused No.2 though had ample opportunity to inflict Gupti blow on the chest of the victim, he caused injury to his leg. This shows that Accused No.2 did not intend to cause serious harm to this victim. We are, therefore, holding that Accused No.2 did not share intention of Accused No.1 to cause such bodily injury to victim Sachin as was likely to cause his death.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 11CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 13 Point No. III : We now come to the crucial question as to whether Accused No.1 committed culpable homicide and whether it amount to murder. There is no difficulty for us to hold that Accused No.1 had committed culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"299. Culpable homicide -. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Explanation 1.- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.- The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 12 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born. "
This Section has following essentials:
(1) Causing a death of human being ; and (2) Such death must have been caused by doing an act either with intention of causing death, (3) or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, (4) or with the knowledge that the accused is likely by such act to cause death.
14 Accused No.1 was seen inflicting blows of Gupti on the torso of Sachin. His first blow was warded off by the victim. With the result, he sustained sharp edged injury on his right forearm. The size of this injury was quite significant. It was 6 cm in length and 2 cm in width. This shows that there was considerable force behind the blow. The second injury that Accused No.1 caused, according to the eye witnesses, was a blow on the chest of the victim. This blow landed on right upper side of the chest. This injury is described as under:
Incised punctured wound over right clavicular region. 2 cm away from upper end of sternum. 1 cm x ½ cm, regular margin, pink in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 13 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 colour, continues bleeding present. No fracture was found was found of palpitation. The effect of this internal damage due to this injury, was described as under:
Sub clavicular vain injury, right side. Clavicular 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm incised piercing injury, regular margin.
15 This description of the injury indicates that the blow, which landed on the chest of the victim was not forceful. The depth of the injury was hardly 1 cm. It caused injury to sub-clavicular vain. Due to cutting of the vain, apparently, hemorrhage took place and victim died within short time. There are two questions that would be asked; first, is whether Accused No.1 had intention to cause this injury? Answer to this question on appreciation of the evidence is in affirmative because he had a Gupti in his hand and he targeted the torso of the victim repeatedly. He intended to cause this injury on the chest of the victim. This was not a blow which accidentally landed on the chest.
16 The second question would be, whether this injury was likely to cause death? It can be argued that this injury was not likely to cause death because the same was not deep. It can also be said that had the victim being given proper medical treatment, his death could have been prevented. But, in view of Explanation - 2 to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, this defence is not available to the accused. Besides, piercing injury on chest by a sharp edged weapon like Gupti can never be neglected as is not likely to cause death. In other words, such injury was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 14 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 certainly likely to case death. In view of this Section, we have no hesitation to hold that Accused No.1 committed culpable homicide of Sachin.
17 The next question is whether, this culpable homicide is a murder? In order to answer this question, one would go to the definition of the term "Murder" given under Section 300. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -
Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly.- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1.- When culpable homicide is not murder.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 15 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 provisos:-
First.- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
ig Explanation.- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 16 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent."
18 It can be argued that Accused No.1 probably had no intention of causing death of Sachin and therefore, his case may not fall in clause firstly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It would neither fall within clause secondly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. But, we find that it would likely to fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The Medical Officer PW-1 specifically opined that the injury on the chest was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Nothing came on record through this witness as expert's opinion as to why this opinion should be discarded. As said above, the depth of the injury was not much. Except the clavicular vain, no vital organ such as lung, heart got ruptured. No rib was fractured. So, there was some scope for the cross-
examiner to explore the possibility to get expert's opinion that the injury described above, was not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. For satisfying our own curiosity, we referred books on anatomy and found that sub clavicular vain is quite thick size vain supplying blood to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 17 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 hand. We also noticed that in view of the thickness of this vain, if cut, at chest level, hemorrhage would take place. This hemorrhage caused death of the victim. For quite some time, the victim was unattended. After causing injury, the accused ran away from the spot whereas, PW-5 obviously went running to the father of the victim. It was certainly not possible form him to arrange help single handed. In the meantime, a lot of time elapsed and the death became inevitable. We, therefore, have no doubt that this case would fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Leading authority in this subject is Virsa Singh Vs. The State Of Punjab, reported in [ 1958 AIR 465 ]. The Apex Court in the case has observed as under :
"The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was 21 or 22 years old and said -
" When the common object of the assembly seems to have been to cause grievous hurts only, I do not suppose Virsa Singh actually had the intention to cause the death of Khem Singh, but by a rash and silly act he gave a rather forceful blow, which ultimately caused his death. Peritonitis also supervened and that hastened the death of Khem Singh. But for that Khem Singh may perhaps not have died or may have lived a little longer."
Basing on those facts, he said that the case fell under s. 300, 3rdly and so he convicted under s. 302, Indian Penal Code.
The learned High Court Judges considered that the whole affair was sudden and occurred on a chance meeting ". But they accepted the finding that the appellant inflicted the injury on Khem Singh and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 18 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 accepted the medical testimony that the blow was a fatal one.
It was argued with much circumlocution that the facts set out above do not disclose an offence of murder because the prosecution has not proved that there was an intention to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Section 300, 3rdly was quoted:
"If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
It was said that the intention that the section requires must be related, not only to the bodily injury inflicted, but also to the clause, "and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
This is a favourite argument in this kind of case but is fallacious. If there is an intention to inflict an injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the intention is to kill and in that event, the "thirdly " would be unnecessary because the act would fall under the first part of the section, namely-
" If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death."
In our opinion, the two clauses are disjunctive and separate. The first is subjective to the offender: "If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person."
It must, of course, first be found that bodily injury was caused and the nature of the injury must be established, that is to say, whether the injury is on the leg or the arm or the stomach, how deep it penetrated, whether any vital organs were cut and so forth. These are purely objective facts and leave no room for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 19 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 inference or deduction: to that extent the enquiry is objective; but when it comes to the question of intention, that is subjective to the offender and it must be proved that he had an intention to cause the bodily injury that is found to be present. Once that is found, the enquiry shifts to the next clause- " and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death." The first part of this is descriptive of the earlier part of the section, namely, the infliction of bodily injury with the intention to inflict it, that is to say, if the circumstances justify an inference that a man's intention was only to inflict a blow on the lower part of the leg, or some lesser blow, and it can be shown that the blow landed in the region of the heart by accident, then, though all injury to the heart is shown to be present, the intention to inflict ail injury in that region, or of that nature, is not proved. In that case, the first part of the clause does not come into play. But once it is proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present, then the earlier part of the clause we are now examining and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted" is merely descriptive.
All it means is that it is not enough to prove that the injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; it must in addition be shown that the injury is of the kind that falls within the earlier clause, namely, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. Whether it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is a matter of inference or deduction from the proved facts about the nature of the injury and has nothing to do with the question of intention. In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarly proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and whether with sufficient ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 20 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary to enquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out, or whether he intended to penetrate the liver or the kidneys or the heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could never be convicted, for, if he does not know that there is a heart or a kidney or bowels, be cannot be said to have intended to injure them. Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is broadbased and simple and based on common sense: the kind of enquiry that " twelve good men and true could readily appreciate and understand.
To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s.
300, 3rdly"; First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present ;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300, 3rdly. It does not matter that there was no ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 21 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
ig No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional.
19 With the result, the judgment of the lower Court is modified.
Accused No.1 is hereby convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5000.
20 The judgment of the lower Court so far as Accused No.2 is concerned, is confirmed. (He is convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 ::: 22 CRI-APEAL 352.99 n 414.99 21 There shall be usual order of set off to both the accused. The entire amount of fine shall be handed over to the victim's father Dattatraya Devidas Gaikwad, resident of Kallam, District Osmanabad as compensation. The order of the lower Court giving benefits of probation to Accused No.2 shall remain unaffected.
22 In view of this, Criminal Appeal No.352 of 1999 stands dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.414 of 1999 is partly allowed.
23 After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for the Accused prayed for time for surrendering to the Police.
24 The Accused shall surrender to Police within four weeks from today.
[ A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J. ]
ndm
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:31 :::