INDRASAN versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 1127 · Decided: 06-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 9 S.C.R. 1127 
INDRASAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 2004) 
JULY 6, 2009 
B 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. 8.S. 
... 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part I) - Murder - By single 
lathi blow - Prosecution relying on version of eye-witnesses c 
and motive for assault - FIR lodged within reasonable time 
- Conviction by courts below u/s. 302 - On appeal, held: 
Intention of accused to cause death proved - However, it is a 
case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder -
... 
Conviction altered to one u/s. 304(Part I) - Sentence of life D 
imprisonment altered to custody of 1 O years. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having 
caused death of one person by giving a lathi blow on his 
head. As per prosecution, PWs. 1, 2 and 3 were the eye-
E 
witnesses to the incident. Trial Court convicted the 
appellant uls. 302 IPC. High Court confirmed the 
conviction. Hence the present appeal. -
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The incident had taken place in broad day 
F 
light in the presence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. The 
defense has not raised any dispute with regard to the 
aforesaid fact nor any suggestion was given to the 
aforesaid eye- witnesses as against their statements that G 
they were present at the time of incident and they had 
seen the entire incident. Their presence at the placj! of 
occurrence was quite natural. [Para 7] [1131-0-E; 1132-
A] 
1127 
H 
1128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. There is no delay in the lodging of the FIR. There 
is also no possibility of any concoction of the incident as 
there was no scope of framing anybody unnecessarily 
and without reason within that short span of time. The 
motive for the murder has also been established. [Para 
B 7] [1131-G; 1132-A] 
1.3. The lathi blow was so forceful that as a 
consequence of which·the deceased died within an hour 
and before he could be taken to the hospital. There is a 
direct nexus · between the blow of lathi and death c:>f the 
C deceased which is immediately caused after giving the 
blow. [Para 11] [1134-B-C] 
1.4. Although it is a case of culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder, but considering the nature of the . 
o injuries which was caused on a vital part of the body, · 
there was intention on the part of the accused-appellant 
to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the conviction 
of the appellant is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 
304 (Part I) IPC. Sentence of life imprisonment altered to 
E custody and sentence of 10 years. [Paras 12 and 13] 
[1134-C-E] 
State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik AIR 1987 SC 1265; 
State of U.P. v. lndrajeet (2000) 7 SCC 249; Joseph v. State 
of Kera/a AIR 1994 SC 34 and Mohd. Shakeel v. State of 
F A.P. (2007) 3 SCC 119, distinguished. 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1987 SC 1265 
(2000) 1 sec 249 
AIR 1994 SC 34 
c2001) 3 sec 119 
Distinguished. 
Para 10 
Distinguished. 
Para 10 
Distinguished. 
Para 10 
Distinguished. 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
. t-
-t" 
INDRASAN v. STATE OF U.P. 
. 1129 
No. 996 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.2003 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal bearing 
number 1996 of 1981. 
Vipin Singhania and Manjula Gupta for the Appellants. 
T.N. Singh, S.K. Dwivedi, Vandana Mishra, Shirish Kr. 
Mishra and Praveen Swarup for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal has 
been preferred by the appellant who has been convicted by the 
Sessions Court as also by the High Court under Section 302 
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
2. The deceased was one Jawahar who was murdered on 
14.10.1979 at about 8.00 AM. in Village Marrie, Police Station 
Nichlaul, District Gorakhpur. The prosecution story in brief is 
that in the said village there was a Government Gausadan (a 
campus with pasture land where cattle are brought up and 
E 
looked after) spreading over an area of about 562 acres. Within 
the said area is also located certain residential premises for 
the employees of the Gausadan. The grasses were also grown 
in Gausadan and contract of growing such grass in Gausadan 
was given by the Government through auction and one 
Harendra Singh who was a contractor was given the said 
contract Goverpal Harijan was one of the employees in the 
Gausadan and on account of his illness, his son Jawahar 
(deceased) was performing his duties in 

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