AUGUSTINE SALDANHA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 26-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

AUGUSTINE SALDANHA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
AUGUST 26, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 299, 300, 302, 304 and 324: 
Three accused persons assaulted the deceased and another-One of 
them died and other suffered injury-Trial Court acquitted all the accused C 
raising doubts on the evidence of prosec·ution witnesses-On appeal, High 
Court found evidence of witnesses trustworthy and convicted one of them for 
the offence punishable under Section 302 and other under Section 324-
App/icability of Section 302-0n appeal, Held: Single blow if inflicted with a 
heavy or dangerous weapon on a vital part of the body of d person could D 
result in his death, accused would be liable for murder-Since the blow was 
inflicted with a stick in a dark night, inference could not be drawn that the 
accused chose to inflict injury on the vital part of the body of the deceased 
with the intention of causing death-Hence, conviction of the accused altered 
from Section 302 to Section 304-Conviction of another accused maintained 
E 
Sections 299 and 300 /PC-Distinction between-Discussed 
Words and Phrases: 
'single blow', 'intention' and 'knowledge'-Meaning of-In the context 
of Section 300 /PC. 
F 
According to the prosecution, accused-appellants assaulted the 
deceased and PWl with sticks, which resulted in the death of the deceased 
and grievous injury to PWl. The Police took them to hospital, investigated 
the matter and submitted the charge sheet. Trial Court acquitted all the 
accused persons doubting credibility of the statement/evidence of the G 
victim/PWl. In appeal, High Court held the statement/evidence as reliable 
and convicted the main accused for committing the murder and sentenced 
him to undergo imprisonment for life and other accused for committing 
the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to 
997 
II 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A undergo imprisonment for one year. Hence the present appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that PWl/victim could not have 
identified the accused persons in the dark night; that the injuries found 
on the body of the deceased and PWl did not tally with the evidence of 
PWl; and that since only one blow was allegedly inflicted by the accused 
B on the body or'the deceased, Section 302 IPC was not attracted. 
c 
On behalf of the Respondent State, it was sub.mitted that the High 
court has rightly observed that the trial Court had magnified the minor 
and trifle circumstances in acquitting the accused persons. 
Allowing the appeal of the main accused and dismissing the 
connected appeal filed by the co-accused, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court has analysed the evidenc.e in great detail; 
and concluded that Trial Court's conclusions were fallacious and based 
D on magnification of trifle and unimportant materials, which in no way 
affected the credibility of prosecution version. There is ito deficiency in 
the view taken by the High Court. The High Court was justified in holding 
the main accused 'and the co-accused responsible for causing the death and 
injury to the deceased' and PWl respectively. (1003-D, El 
E 
1.2. In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and 
'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. 
For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the 
generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable 
homicide. The first may be called as 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. 
F This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 
300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the 
second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, 
there is 'culpable. homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of 
culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it, is also the lowest 
among the punishments'provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide 
G of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304. 
'(1003-F, G, H; 1004-A) 
1.3. It is noteworthy that the 'intention to cause death' is not an 
essential requirement of clause (2) of Section 300 iPC. Only the intention 
H of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the 
·, 
AUGUSTINE SALDANHA v. STA TE 
999 
likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim is A 
sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this c

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