LexBALKAR SINGH versus STATE OF UTIARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2009] 5 S.C.R. 242 BALKAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2007) MARCH 31, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 304 (Part I) - Conviction u/ss. 302 and 307 - By Courts below - Relying on evidence of injured witness and eye- witnesses - On appeal, held: In view of the circumstances in which offence was committed, case not covered u/s. 302 - 0 Conviction altered to one uls. 304 (Part I). ss. 299 (b) and 300 (c) - Distinction between - Discussed. Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having E caused death of two persons and for attempt of murder one person . Trial court convicted him ulss. 302 and 307 IPC, placing reliance on evidence of one injured eye- witness and two other eye-witnesses. The conviction was confirmed by High Court discarding the contention F of the accused that the case was not covered by s. 302 • IPC. Hence, the present appeal. ' Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the scheme of the IPC culpable G homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special ' characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing H 242 ·- BALKAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 243 punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic A offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest - form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section - 300 IPC as 'murder'. The second may be termed as B • 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC. 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 c ... provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304 IPC. [Para 7] [248-G-H; 249-A-B] 1.2. The distinction between ss. 299 and 300 IPC lies __,; between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily D injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death E resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of th~ gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in clause ~ (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as F distinguished from a mere possibility. For cases to fall ' within clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender J intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. [Paras 10 G and 11] [251-B-G; 252-A-B] 1.3. Under clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied: i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 $.C.R. A with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury r ~ intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which, - 8 in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause -- • death, viz., that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. [Para 15) [254-A- BJ c Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kera/a AIR 1966 SC 1874 and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, relied on. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnawa and Anr.1976 (4) SCC 382; Abdul Waheed Khan@ Waheed and D Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh JT 2002 (6) SC 274; ~ Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka 2003 (10) SCC 472; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (9) SCC 650 and Laxmannath v. State of Chhatisgarh 2009 (1) SCR 348, referred to. E 2. The background as projected by the prosecution is that the accused requested the deceased to have some wine with him as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.