Brief Facts
- The Prosecution’s allegation was that the Appellant-Accused and the Deceased were cousins. On one afternoon, when the Deceased was getting his land levelled through a JCB machine, the Appellants reached the place and attacked him. The deceased sustained several injuries including head injuries. He was taken to the hospital and was examined. As serious head injuries were involved, deceased was operated. However, deceased could not survive and died on 22.03.2012. Thereafter in the post-mortem it was stated that the death was caused by injuries sustained by the Deceased on his head.
- The FIR was lodged by the daughter of the Deceased under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The FIR alleged that the Appellants reached the spot, abused the deceased and then assaulted him. The allegation against the Appellant was that he was armed with an axe and he attacked the Deceased on the head.
- After the Chargesheet was filed by the Police, the Trial Court charged all three Accused persons of sharing common intention and then committing the murder of deceased; they were charged with commission of offences under Sections 294, 323 and 302 read with 34 IPC. The Appellants were put to trial and later convicted for offence under section 302 IPC.
- Thereafter Appellants filed an Appeal before the High Court which was partly allowed. The High Court acquitted one accused, but affirmed the conviction and sentence of the other two Accused including the Appellant.
- Therefore, aggrieved by the Judgement of the High Court, the Appellants filed the present appeal
Issues
- Whether credibility of the eye-witness can be doubted merely because she is a relative of the deceased?
- Whether the present incident can be categorized as grave and sudden provocation and without premeditation, though the accused were armed with weapons?
- Whether the conviction of the accused be changed from section 302 to section 304, Part-II of IPC as the Appellants claimed no intention to cause death of the deceased?
- Whether the death occurred after the lapse of such a time that shows that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the offender’s liability from the offense of murder?
Held
- The Apex Court rejected the appeal and sustained the conviction of the Appellants. The conviction under section 302 IPC was found to be correct as there was no grave and sudden provocation so as to classify the offence under section 304, Part-II of the IPC.
- The testimony of PW-1 (injured eye witness and daughter of the deceased) was found to be reliable. Although PW-1 is the deceased’s daughter, that is insufficient to doubt the veracity of what she recounted during the trial. There is no explanation on the part of the Appellants as to why the witness should depose falsely. Her testimony was supported by the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4.
- The Apex Court relied on the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu, AIR 1977 SC 45 to differentiate between the murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Apex Court considered that the Appellants themselves were the aggressors who attacked the deceased with axes and the deceased was unarmed. Injuries were sustained on the head and the deceased later succumbed to such injuries.
- What is evident is that while there were pre-existing disputes of some vintage, between the appellants and the deceased, there is nothing to show that they had been aggravated. It is also, likewise, not clear whether the deceased said anything to the appellants which triggered their ire, leading to loss of self-control as to result in “grave and sudden provocation”. In any case, if there were something, the appellants ought to have brought the relevant material or evidence on record, as what facts did exist, was within their peculiar knowledge.
- There can be no stereotypical assumption or formula that where death occurs after a lapse of some time, the injuries (which might have caused the death), the offence is one of culpable homicide. Every case has its unique fact situation. However, what is important is the nature of injury, and whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death. The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor in this case, because the doctor who conducted the post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio respiratory failures, as a result of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased. Thus, the injuries and the death were closely and directly linked.
Relevant Para No.
- 14, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27