LexABDUL WAHEED KHAN @ WAHEED AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ ABDUL W AHEED KHAN @ W AHEED AND ORS. A v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AUGUST 27, 2002. [RUMA PAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B Penal Code, I 860-Sections 302, 300 and 229--Conviction under Section 302--Correctness of-With an object to rob, accused persons indiscriminately stabbing a person resulting in his death-Trial Court convicting accused for c culpable homicide not amounting to murder-High Court converting convictio71 to murder-On appeal held, the intention prevailing at the time of assault determines applicability of relevant provisions-In the instant case, death ensued from bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature-Hence High Court justified in converting conviction of accused to murder. D Murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Distinction betwee~Discussed ·. Test identification parade-To be conducted immediately after arrest of accused person-However, some delay in holding the test which is beyond E control does not corrode the prosecution case. - Appellants-accused entered into conspiracy to rob one H. Three of the accused indiscriminately stabbed H with knives which resulted in his death. Trial Court on the basis of evidence of eye-witnesses convicted the three accused under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and F acquitted others. High Court altered the conviction and sentence to one under Section 302 IPC and upheld the acquittal of other accused. Hence the present appeals. Appellants contended that delay in conducting the test identification G parade corroded the prosecution version; that High Court should not have altered the conviction and as per the doctor who conducted post-mortem injury was on account of fall on the rough surface thus it was not possible to draw inference about the intention of the accused to kill deceased for robbing the cash. 703 H ... 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A Respondent contended that due formalities were observed before conducting test identification parades and the reason for some delay in conducting th~ test had been duly explained and that to achieve the intended object of robbing deceased, accused persons indiscriminately stabbed him till he succumbed to death and the cash and the drafts were B snatched away from him; thus High Court was justified in applying Section 302 IPC. Dismissing tlie appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide' not amounting to murder' has always vexed the C Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. (712-C, DJ 1.2. Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC corresponds with clauses (2) and D (3) of SectioD--300 IPC. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by offender regarding the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. The 'intention E to cause death' is not an essential requirement of clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. (713-F, G] F 1.3. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a first blow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause G death of that particular person as a result of rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given. In clause (3) of Section H 300, instead of the words 'likely to cause death' occurring
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.