BUNNILAL CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 05-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BUNNILAL CHAUDHARY 
V. 
ST ATE OF BIHAR 
B 
JULY 5, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
C 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 299 and 300, clause 'thirdly'-Single knife injury caused on 
left side of chest of victim-Death of victim-Medical report not pointing out 
that injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death-Held, 
case falls under third part of Section 300 and accused is guilty of offence 
D punishable under Section 304 (part II) !PC-Ingredients of Section 300, clause 
'thirdly' and Section 299 explained. 
Section 3021149-0ne out of the ten accused giving a single knife blow 
on chest of victim resulting in his death-Conviction by trial court of all 
E accused u/s 3021149-High Court convicting the a/tacking accused u/s 302 
and seven others u/s 3021149-0n appeal conviction u/s 302 altered to one 
u/s 304 (part II) /PC-As regards the other accused persons-Held, it has not 
been proved that accusE~d came on the scene of occurrence with an intention 
to commit murder of victim nor were they stated to have given any blow to 
him-Their conviction is set aside. 
F 
Appellants in both these appeals and two others were prosecuted 
under Sec!ions 302/49, 147 and 148 IPC. The prosecution case was that 
with regard to balance payment of sale of a she-buffalow there developed 
an ill-will between th1e accused and the informant. On the day of the 
incident, the accused were stated to have surrounded PW 5, the father of 
G 
th1~ informant. Meanwhile informant's younger brother also reached the 
scene; the accused chased him and A-1 caused a knife injury on the left 
side of his chest. When his father tried to intervene, A-5 gave a knife blow 
on his head. On hearing the noise many people reached the scene and the 
264 
H 
BUNNILAL CHAUDHARY v. STA TE OF BIHAR 
265 
accused fled away. The injured brother of the informant was taken to the A 
Hospital where he was declared dead. 
The trial court convicted all the ten accused, inter alia, ti/s 302/49 
and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court 
converted the conviction of A-1 from s.302/149 to s.302 IPC and acquitted 
two of the accused of the charges. Conviction and sentence of the B 
remaining accused u/s 302/349 IPC was affirmed. Aggrieved, A-1 filed Crl. 
Appeal No.605/2005 and the others filed Crl. Appeal No.606/2005. 
Allowing Crl. Appeal No.606/2005 and partly allowing Crl. Appeal 
No.605/2005, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that the injury inflicted by A-1 on c 
the left side of the chest of the deceased is single one. On examination, the 
doctor found the injury situated above nipple on the left side of the chest 
extending 1 "X Yi" penetrating wound. The doctor has not opined that the 
injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. That D 
was not even stated to be likely to cause death. No attempt was made by 
A-1 to cause serious injury on any vital part of the body of the deceased. 
There was no motive or intention of A-1 to have murdered the deceased. 
(271-B-D) 
1.2. Clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 IPC requires that the bodily E 
injury must be intended and the bodily injury intended to be caused must 
be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This clause 
is in two parts: the first part is a subjective one which indicates that the 
injury must be an intentional one and not an accidental one; the second 
part is objective in that looking at the injury intended to be caused, the 
court must be satisfied that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of F 
nature to cause death. The first part is complied with, because the injury 
which was intended to be caused was the one which was found on the 
person of the deceased. But the second part, is not fulfilled because but 
for the fact that the injury caused had penetrated the lung, death might 
not have ensued. In other words, looking at the matter objectively, the G 
injury which A-1 intended to cause, did not include specifically the cutting 
of the left lungs but to wound A-1 in the neighbourhood of the nipple on 
left side of chest. Therefore, Clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 does not cover 
the case. (271-E-G) 
2. Inasmuch as death has been caused, the matter must still come H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A within at least culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There again, 
Section 299 is in three parts. The first part takes in the doing of an act 
with the intenti

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