LexGOKUL PARASHRAM PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 658 GOKUL PARASHRAM PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA May 4, 1981 [ A. D. KOSHAL AND BAHARUL ISLAM, , JJ. ] Conviction under s. 302 Penal Code b2se-l on sole injury on non-vital part-If injury caused by the assailant was not intended to cause dearh clause thirdly of s.30 Penal Code will not be attracted and the conviction and sentence should be under Part I! of sertion 304 Penal Code. The appellant attacked one Ania with a knife giving the latter a single blow above the left clavicle where it caused a muscle-deep incised wound having the dimensions 1-1/4" x 1 /3". The autopsy surgeon, while certifying the existence of that wound, also found that the superior venacava had been cut, the damage so caused being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The sessions court convicted the appellant of an offence under section 301 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence in appeal. Hence, the appeal by special leave. Allowing the appeal in part and substituting a conviction under Part II of section 304 and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment, the Court. HELD : I. To attract clause thirdly of section 300 of the Penal Code and also illustration (c) appended thereto the injury in quesiion needs satisfy only two tests- namely, (a) the injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and (b) such injury must have been intended to heve been caused by the culprit. [661 A-BJ • 2. In the present case, the solitary blow given by the appellant to the deceased was on the left clavicle a non-vital part-and tte appellant cannot be said to know that the superior venacava would be cut as a result of that wound. Even a medical man perhaps may not have been able to judge the location of the superior venacava with any precision of that type. The fact that the vena- cava was cut must, therefore, be ascribed to a non-intentional or accidental cir- cumstance. Therefore, it cannot by said to have been intended by the appel- lant. [660 A-Cl Virsa Singh v. Srate of Punjab, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 465, referred to. G.P. PATIL v. MAHARASHTRA (Koshal, J.) 659 Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 867 and Laxman A Kalu Nikalje v. The State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1390, followed. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION: Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1981. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated B the 8th September, 1980 of .the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1980. V.N. Ganpule, A.B. Lal and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Petitioner. ~ 0.P. Rana and R.N. Poddar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KosHAL, J. The appellant has been convicted of an offence c under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to D as the Code) for causing the death of one Anita, and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court as well as in appeal by the High Court. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant attacked the deceased with a knife giving the latter a single blow above the E left clavicle where it caused a muscle-deep incised wound having the dimension 1-1/4" x 1/3". The autopsy surgeon, while certifying the existence of that wound, also found that the superior venacava had been cut, the damage so caused being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case does not fall within the ambit of section 302 of the Code and that the two courts below erred in relying on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab. (1) The gist of the dictum of this Court in that case is that if an injury is held to have been intended by the assailant and is further found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would attract clause thirdly of section 300 of the Code and that, therefore, its author would be liable to punishment under section 302 thereof. The question thus is whether the (I) A.T.R. 1958 S.C. 465 F G H A B c D E 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 3 S.C.R. particular injury which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, in the present case, was an injury intended by the appellant. Our answer to the question is an emphatic no. The solitary blow given by the appellant to the deceased was on the left clavic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.