ANBAZHAGAN versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1091 · Decided: 20-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1091
ANBAZHAGAN
v.
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 2043 of 2023)
JULY 20, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – Alteration of conviction from s. 304-I to
s.304-II of IPC – Single injury – Prosecution case that appellant
and deceased picked up verbal altercation in regard to the pathway
and the appellant had inflicted one blow with a “Hoe”-a
agricultural/gardening tool on the head of the victim-deceased as
a result of which the victim fell unconscious and later died – Trial
Court held appellant guilty for the offence of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder u/s. 304-I of the IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years – High
Court dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction of the appellant
u/s. 304-I of the IPC – On appeal, held: The difference between the
two parts of s. 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 s.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 the offence punishable
under the second part of s.304 of the IPC, the accused need not
bring his case within one of the exceptions to s.300 of the IPC –
Looking at the overall evidence on record, it is difficult to come to
the conclusion that when the appellant struck the deceased with
the weapon of offence, he intended to cause such bodily injury as
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – The
weapon of offence in the instant case was a common agriculture
tool not a weed axe – The appellant could only be attributed with
the knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely
to cause the death – It is in such circumstances, the case on hand
does not fall within clause thirdly of s.300 of the IPC – In view of
the principles of law, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 304 Part I
of the IPC is altered to one u/s. 304 Part II of the IPC – For the
altered conviction, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1091 : 2023 INSC 632
1091
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.299, 300 and 304 Part-II – Single
injury – 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 u/s. 304 Part II of the
IPC.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 304 Part-I – Applicability of – 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.
Penal Code, 1860 – Intention to kill – 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.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.299 and s.300 – discussed.
Criminal Law – Intent and knowledge – discussed.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Few important principles of law 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1093
test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.