Telangana High Court
Telugu Gopal A1 And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana on 13 December, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1121 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 17th and 20th October, 2014 in S.C. No.601 of 2011 passed by learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal.
3. The appellants herein are arraigned as accused Nso.1, 2 and 4 in the aforesaid S.C. No.601 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred as they arraigned in S.C. No.601 of 2011.
4. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted appellant No.1 - accused No.1 for the offences under Sections - 302 and 324 IPC, while appellant Nos.2 and 3 - accused Nos.2 and 4 for the offence under Section - 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. 2
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014
5. The case of the prosecution is as under:
i) The appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 herein and other accused hail from Peddapally village and all of them belong to Telugu Caste. The deceased - T. Ranganna developed illegal contacts with one Smt. Shankaramma, who is the wife of accused No.3 - Chinna Laxmaiah and used to visit the house of accused No.3 openly which caused great hurt to the feelings of family members of the accused.
All the accused warned the deceased several times not to visit the house, but he did not oblige and continued the same. Therefore, the accused persons developed grudge and enmity against the deceased.
ii) On 19.06.2011 at about 1900 hours, the deceased was returning to his house from bus stop in a drunken state and noticed accused No.1 chit-chatting with PWs.3, 4 and 6 in front of the house of LW.12 - Seetha Rami Reddy, situated by the side of the house of accused No.5, and picked up quarrel with accused No.1 alleging that they are preventing him from continuing illegal contacts with the wife of accused No.3. The same was witnessed by accused Nos.2 to 8, who were present in front of the house of accused No.5. Then, accused Nos.1 to 8 formed themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with sticks, caught hold the deceased and dragged him to the house of 3 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 accused No.5 and attacked on him. Accused Nos.1 to 4 beat him with sticks, while accused Nos.5 to 8 beat with hands and legs, caused severe injuries on head and other parts of the deceased.
iii) Having come to know the same, PWs.2 and 15, who are younger brother and wife of the deceased respectively, rushed to the spot and PW.2 tried to rescue the deceased, but he was also beaten by accused Nos.1 to 4 with sticks, caused simple and grievous injuries, while accused Nos.5 to 8 beat with hands. The said incident was witnessed by PW.3, 4, 6, 10 and 11. Thus, the accused committed the offence of rioting with murder.
iv) On receipt of the information, the mother of the deceased - PW.1 lodged a complaint on the intervening night of 19/20.06.2011 at 0015 hours with Maldakal Police Station, who in turn, registered a case as Crime No.50 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections - 147, 148 and 324 read with 149 IPC and took up investigation.
v) A counter case was also registered vide Crime No.49 of 2011 under Sections - 147, 148, 324 and 307 read with 149 IPC by Maldakal Police Station, wherein the relatives of the deceased and 4 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 injured all went to the house of accused No.5, attacked them and caused injuries.
vi) During investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses and also conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the same was committed to the Sessions Judge which was numbered as Sessions Case No.601 of 2011.
6. The learned Sessions Judge after framing the charges for the offences under Sections - 148, 302, 302 r/w 149 and 326 IPC proceeded with trial. During trial, PWs.1 to 20 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 and MOs.1 to 4 were exhibited/marked on behalf of prosecution. None were examined on behalf of the accused, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced.
7. The learned Sessions Judge on appraisal of evidence, both oral and documentary and after hearing both sides, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and accordingly sentenced them for life imprisonment. Assailing the said conviction and sentences of imprisonment, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 preferred the present appeal. 5
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 Now, the accused are undergoing the sentence of imprisonment in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 would submit that the accused totally denied the case of prosecution. In fact, the deceased and his men also attacked some of the accused, due to which, some of the accused received severe injuries. Immediately after the incident, accused No.1 gave a report in the police station and the police registered a case in Crime No.49 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections - 147, 148, 324 and 307 read with 149 IPC against the deceased and prosecution witnesses.
i) He would further submit that after completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet against the deceased and PW.2 and 6 others and they were tried vide S.C. No.641 of 2011 for the aforesaid offences. As a counterblast, PW.1 also gave a report to the police against the accused and others and the same was registered as Crime No.50 of 2011. Thus, the report given by the accused is earlier to the report given by PW.1.
ii) He would further submit that though the accused persons received the injuries in the said incident, the same were not explained 6 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 by the prosecution. Non-explanation of the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even as per the prosecution, the deceased started quarrelling with accused No.1 when he was talking with PWs.3, 4 and 6 near the house of LW.12 - C. Seetharami Reddy and also accused No.5. Even according to the prosecution, the deceased was in drunken state at that time. It was not one sided attack, but both the parties involved in the said quarrel and both the parties received injuries. In the said circumstances, the question of the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 herein along with other accused forming unlawful assembly does not arise and the persons who have not caused injuries cannot be convicted.
iii) He would also submit that according to the alleged eye- witnesses i.e., PWs.2, 10, 11 and 15, the deceased received head injury, but they did not say who caused the same and therefore the same is fatal to the prosecution case. None of the eye-witnesses spoke about the individual overt acts and, therefore, it is difficult to form an opinion that who is responsible for causing head injury. Since there was enmity between the deceased and the accused persons, there is every possibility of false implication of the accused. There is no chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the offence alleged 7 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 to have committed by them. He would further submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants. Without considering the said aspects, the trial Court erred in recording the conviction against the accused and, therefore, he sought to set aside the convictions and sentences of imprisonments.
iv) In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the decisions in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar 1; Gurudev Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2; Kali Ram v. Stateof Himachal Pradesh 3; Surain Singh v. State of Punjab4; Dr. Mohammad Khali Chisti v. State of Rajasthan 5; Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police 6; and Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan 7.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that the evidence of prosecution witnesses would prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court gave specific reasoning by referring to the depositions of prosecution witnesses and the documents as mentioned in the impugned judgment. Though there is no direct evidence, the trial Court by considering 1 . AIR 1976 SC 2263 2 . 2003 Crl.L.J. 552 3 . AIR 1973 SC 2773 4 . (2017) 5 SCC 796 5 . Crl.A. No.634 of 2012, decided on 12.12.2012 6 . (2018) 7 SCC 536 7 . (2016) 12 SCC 389 8 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 circumstantial evidence, recorded the conviction for the said offences. He would further contend that the trial Court is having power to record conviction even by relying on circumstantial evidence. Impugned judgment is a reasoned one and it does not require interference.
10. In view above, the issue that falls for consideration by this Court is:
Whether the convictions and sentences of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court for the offences under Sections - 302 and 324 of IPC against appellant No.1 - accused No.1 and under Section - 302 of IPC against appellant Nos.2 and 3 - accused Nos.2 and 4 are sustainable, both on facts and in law?
11. Now, it is apt to refer to the evidence of witnesses so as to come to a conclusion whether the trial Court was right in recording convictions against the appellants and consequential imposition of sentences of life imprisonment on them or not?
12. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased and she lodged Ex.P1 report to the police. She deposed that 8 months ago from the date of her deposition at about 7.00 P.M., the deceased - Ranganna was 9 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 returning from bus stand to his house and when he reached near the house of LW.12 - Seetarami Reddy, all the accused came and beat the deceased with sticks, and PW.2 and PW.15, who are younger brother and wife of the deceased respectively had intervened. The accused beat PW.2, who also sustained fracture injury to his right hand, whereas the deceased sustained injuries on his head and died due to the said injuries. They took the deceased to Govt. Hospital, Gadwal and from there he was shifted to Kurnool for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died. The accused were under the impression that the deceased was having illegal contacts with the wife of accused No.3 and that the accused bore grudge against the deceased and killed him. This witness is not a direct witness to the incident.
13. PW.2, younger brother of the deceased, deposed that he and the wife of the deceased went to the scene of offence and intervened to rescue him. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 beat him with sticks and he sustained fracture injury to his right palm, whereas the deceased sustained injury on his head. On the next day morning at about 8.00 A.M., the deceased died in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. During cross-examination, he admitted that villagers informed him 10 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 that the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased, but he did not remember their names. This witness is also not a direct witness as he did not watch the incident.
14. PW.15, wife of the deceased, deposed on the very same lines as deposed by PWs.1 and 2.
15. PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6, residents of the same village to which the deceased and the accused persons belongs and said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence since did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, they were declared hostile and were cross- examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor.
i) However, PW.10, one more eye-witness deposed about the deceased and accused No.1 quarrelling with each other and then accused Nos.2 to 8 came and all of them took the deceased in front of the house of accused No.5 and beat him with sticks. The accused also beat PW.2 with stick on his right hand. PW.11 also deposed on the very same lines.
ii) During cross-examination, PW.10 admitted that immediately after hearing the galatta, he went near the house of LW.12 where about three or four villagers present and that galatta took place for 11 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 about ten minutes. All the accused assaulted the deceased with sticks on his head and on other parts of the body of the deceased. After five minutes, he went there and PW.2 and PW.15 came there. He is accused in S.C. No.346 of 2011.
iii) PW.11, during cross-examination, admitted that on hearing the cries of 10 or 15 members, he and PW.10 went near the house of LW.12. PW.10 went first and he followed him. He witnessed the deceased and accused No.1 quarrelling with each other near the house of LW.12. When he tried to intervene, the accused threatened them that they will assault them. They also followed the accused and the deceased to the house of accused No.5. Near the house of accused No.5 the gallata took place for about half an hour to one hour. At that time, the deceased consumed alcohol.
iv) From the evidence of PW.10 and PW.11, it can only be said that some altercation took place between the deceased and the accused persons and out of such altercation, the deceased had received injuries, but it cannot be culled out that the accused had any intention to cause injuries to the deceased leading to his death. 12
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014
16. PW.5 is a Photographer and he obtained the photographs of the dead body of the deceased.
17. PW.7 and PW.12 are panch witnesses for scene of offence, while PW.8 and PW.16 are panch witnesses for confession and seizure from accused Nos.1 to 3, while PW.9 and PW.17 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure from accused No.4 and they did not support the case of prosecution except PW.12.
18. PW.13 and LW.12 are the panch witnesses to the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased. He noticed the injuries on the head of the deceased.
19. PW.14 is the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College. He deposed that he conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased and found anti- mortem external and internal injuries over the dead body of the deceased and they were bright red in colour. According to him, the cause of death is intracranial bleeding resulting from head injury. The said injuries were possible by blunt object, like stick. Ex.P14 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. However, during cross- examination, he admitted that the head injury observed by him at the 13 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 time of post-mortem examination may be possible by fall from height on a rough surface.
20. PW.18 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Gadwal. He deposed that he examined PW.2 and found i) fracture of 5th metacarpal of right hand, which is grievous in nature and ii) laceration over right arm, which is simple in nature. He issued Ex.P19 wound certificate.
21. PW.19 and PW.20 are the Police Officials, who deposed about receipt of Ex.P1 report, registration of crime, conducting investigation, examination of witnesses, recording their statements and filing of charge sheet etc.
22. In view of the aforesaid evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, as discussed above, PWs.3, 4 and 6, who said to be the eye- witnesses to the incident, did not support the prosecution case. Though, PWs.10 and 11 deposed about the altercation took place between the deceased and the accused and that the accused persons beat him with sticks causing injuries which ultimately led to the death of deceased, there is no direct evidence to show that the accused 14 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 persons had an intention either to kill the deceased or to cause injuries which are likely to lead death or the accused had pre-mediated mind. However, it is no doubt true that the accused persons beat the deceased and the injuries caused led to his death. Further, the medical evidence through PW.14 - the Assistant Professor and Ex.P14-PME report, supports the case of prosecution that cause of death of the deceased was due to intracranial bleeding resulting from head injury. There are several ante-mortem external and internal injuries on the dead body, found by the post-mortem doctor and, according to his opinion, those ante-mortem injuries, which are homicidal in nature, are the reasons for the death of the victim.
23. "Culpable Homicide" is a genus and "murder" is its species and all "murders" are "culpable homicides, but all "culpable homicides" are not "murders" as held by the Apex Court in Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 8. The intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of actual circumstances, but in the light of what is supposed to be the circumstances. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that accused No.1 accompanied the deceased on the date of death. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that all 8 . (2012) 8 SCC 289 15 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 the accused had come prepared to commit the offence or there was premeditation/prior meeting of minds of the accused for commission of offence.
24. Section 302 of IPC is important in many ways. Persons accused of murder are tried under this section only. Further, if in case, an accused of murder is found guilty of an offence, Section - 302 provides for punishment to such offenders. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with either life imprisonment or death (depending on the gravity of the murder) along with fine. The primary point of consideration for the Court in matters relating to murder is the intent and purpose of the accused. That is why, it is important that the object and intention of the accused is proved in cases under this section. The required materials for murder include intention (must be intended to cause death), cause of death (the act has to be done with the knowledge that the act may cause the death of another and bodily injury (there must be intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death).
16
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014
25. In Basdev v. State of Pepsu 9 the Apex Court held as under:
"Of course, we have to distinguish between motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote different things. Even in some English decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this has led to a certain amount of confusion."
26. It requires to be borne in mind that the test suggested in the aforesaid decision and the fact that the legislature has used two different terminologies, 'intent' and 'knowledge' and separate punishments are provided for an act committed with an intent to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death and for an act committed with a knowledge that his act is likely to cause death without intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it would be unsafe 9 . AIR 1956 SC 488 17 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 to treat 'intent' and 'knowledge' in equal terms. They are not different things. Knowledge would be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring the requisite intent. Where the evidence would not disclose that there was any intention to cause death of the deceased but it was clear that the accused had knowledge that his acts were likely to cause death, the accused can be held guilty under second part of Section - 304 IPC. It is in this background that the expression used in Indian Penal Code namely "intention" and "knowledge" has to be seen as there being a thin line of distinction between these two expressions. The act to constitute murder, if in given facts and circumstances, would disclose that the ingredients of Section - 300 are not satisfied and such act is one of extreme recklessness, it would not attract the said Section. In order to bring a case within Part 3 of Section - 300 IPC, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. In other words, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.
18
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014
27. The Apex Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 10, held as under:
"Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be 16 gathered generally from a combination of a few or several 10 . AIR 2006 SC 3010 19 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;
(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may."
[[[[
28. The Apex Court in Anbazhagan v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police 11, held as under:
11
. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 857 20 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 "60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:
(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate: 'A' is bound hand and foot. 'B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of 'A', shoots 'A' in his head killing him instantaneously.
Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of 'B' in shooting 'A' was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A' while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of 'A', 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of 'A' and runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter. The injury to 'A' was found to be sufficient in 21 ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that 'B' intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of 'B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused.
21
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 (2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.
(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is 22 punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first 22 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 part of this section would apply when there is 'guilty intention,' whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'. (4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.
(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of 23 the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, 23 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
(6) The word 'likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death. (7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC.
24
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 (8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant 24 must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.
(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.
(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. (11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the 25 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies. (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC."
29. The Apex Court in a recent judgment in N. Ramkumar v. The State, rep.by Inspector 12 also reiterated the aforesaid principle.
30. The appellants herein - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are in jail from the date of impugned judgment.
31. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down in the above decisions, coming to the case on hand, the entire commission of offence had resulted without any premeditation. Even though there was a common object between all the accused, the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved that there was a meeting of 12 . Crl.A. No.2006 of 2023, decided on 06.09.2023 26 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. No.1121 of 2014 minds to commit the murder of the deceased. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that it was a case where an act was committed by the accused with knowledge but without intention. The trial Court did not consider all the aforesaid aspects while imposing life imprisonment on the accused persons. Accordingly, this Court while upholding the finding of guilt against the accused persons, altered the convictions and sentences of the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 persons imposed under Section - 302 to Section 304 Part II of IPC for the altered conviction, and the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are sentenced to the imprisonment to the period already undergone and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
32. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part in the above terms.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _________________ K. SUJANA, J 13th December, 2023 Mgr