Nature of injury and not number of injuries determines accused’s intention

Isha Sawant | Government Law College | 16th September 2020

Stalin v. State represented by the Inspector of Police

Facts:

The appellant- Stalin aggrieved by the decision of the Madras High Court dismissing his appeal approached the Supreme Court. The appellant and his friends were having a beer party, the victim-Kalidas had served extra beer to two persons who came from outside, the appellant questioned him serving extra beer to out of town people and not to local people, a scuffle broke out between them, the appellant than took a knife and stabbed the victim from behind who succumbed to the injury. The appellant/accused was tried by the Sessions Court who convicted him for an offence punishable u/s-302 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of the Madras High Court dated 18-01-2017, confirmed the judgement of the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/accused, thus he approached the Supreme Court against this impugned judgement of the High Court.

Issues:

• Whether the appellant/accused was entitled to be convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC or he was to be convicted for a lesser offence u/s- 304 Part I/II of the IPC.

Legal Provisions:

• Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 300- Murder.
• Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 302 Punishment for murder.
• Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 304 Part-I Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc.
• Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 304 Part-II If act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, etc.

Appellant’s Contention:

The counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that since it was a single blow that caused the injury, sec-302 of IPC shall not be attracted. They also submitted that the motive alleged by the prosecution was four months prior to the incident, and the prosecution had failed to prove the motive beyond reasonable doubt. They also submitted that since the incident took place on grave and sudden provocation it would fall under exception-1 of sec-300 of the IPC, it was a single blow and so the appellant should be tried for a lesser offence than sec-302, they relied on the decision of the apex court in Musumsha Hasansha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000). They prayed for the conviction under sec-302 to be converted to one u/s-304 Part-II of IPC. 

Respondents Contention:

The counsel for the state submitted that the Trial Court and High Court had rightly convicted the appellant/accused u/s 302 on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case. They submitted that the appellant/accused caused a single blow on a vital body part and that there was no grave or sudden provocation for the same. They also contented that there was no rule laid down in any decisions of the apex court that a single blow will not attract sec-302. They also submitted that the apex court had stated in its decisions that the number of injuries does not determine intention; rather the nature of injury, weapons used to cause such injury are indicators to determine whether the intention of the accused was to cause death or not.

Observations of the Court:

The case was heard before the Supreme Court Bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M. R. Shah, JJ. The court observed the difference between exception-1 and exception-4 under sec-300 of the IPC, application of exception-4 has the following requirements of grave and sudden provocation, act done without premeditation, act done in heat of passion and that the offender did not take undue or unfair advantage; whereas under exception-1 there is total deprivation of self-control. The court went through the cases relied upon by the respondent state and observed that there is no mandate that in case of single injury sec-302 would not be attracted, it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also held that the nature of injury, weapons used, whether the accused carried the weapon or picked it up on spot, whether the blow was on a vital body-part or not, whether the act was due to sudden fight, whether it occurred by chance or due to premeditation, if there was grave and sudden provocation, if there was a single injury or multiple injuries, etc all these factors based on circumstances help in ascertaining the accused’s intention.  They also stated that the ruling out sec-302 whenever death occurs due to a single blow cannot be laid down as a mandate. The facts and circumstances of each case will decide the nature of offence. The court on the appellant/accused’s contention that the prosecution had not proved the alleged motive which took place four moths prior to the incident, held that in the present case there were three eye-witnesses believed by the both the courts, so they were not going to doubt the credibility of the eye-witnesses. It observed that the prosecution had successfully proven its case against the accused by examining the three eye-witnesses and as rightly held by the High Court, the prosecution’s failure to prove the alleged motive should not be fatal to the prosecution’s case, they referred to the case of Jafel Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2019) where it was held that when there was definite evidence proving the incident and the statements of three eye-witnesses proving the role of the accused, the prosecution not being able to prove motive does not affect the prosecution’s case. The court then went through the facts and circumstances of the case and came to the conclusion that the present case will not fall under sec-302, it will also not fall under sec-304 Part II, but will attract sec-304 Part I of IPC. 

Judgement:

The court by a judgement dated 09-09-2020, allowed the appeal in part. The judgement of the High Court and Trial Court of convicting the accused u/s-302 of IPC was modified to conviction u/s-304 Part-1 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default one year of rigorous imprisonment.