LexJAGRITI DEVI versus STATE OF H.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 167
JAGRITI DEVI
A
V.
STATE OF H.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2003)
JULY 6, 2009
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. 8.S.
CHAUHAN, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
s. 304 (part II) - During the course of altercation accused
snatching 'khukri' from her co-wife and assaulting her with it -
Death of victim - Conviction and sentence by trial court u/s
302 - Affirmed by High Court - Held: It is quite clear from
,
the record that preceding the incident, the deceased took out D
the 'Khukri' with the intention of assaulting the accused and
the latter in order to save herself grappled with the deceased
and in the process she also received injuries - Clearly, there
was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased
- Therefore, it is not a case u/s 302 but it falls uls 304 (part
E
II) - Conviction u/s 302 set aside and accused convicted uls
304 (part II) - Sentence altered to the period already under
gone which is about 7 years.
ss. 299 and 300 - 'Culpable homicide' , 'murder', and
'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' - Explained.
F
The appellant was prosecuted for commission of
offence punishable uls 302 IPC on the allegation that on
2.6.1996 at 6.00 AM she assaulted her co-wife with 'khukri'
as a result of which the victim died. The accused-
G
appellant, in her statement uls 313 CrPC did not deny
having caused fatal injuries to the deceased, but stated
that she had assaulted her in exercise of her right of
private defence. She also filed a written statement uls 233
167
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 10 S.C.R.
A CrPC stating that on the fateful day there was an
altercation between her and the deceased upon which
the latter took out the 'Khukri, kept under her pillow and
attacked the accused with the same causing some
injuri~s on her head; and in order to save herself, she
B snatched the 'khukri' from the deceased and gave a few
'Khukri' blows to the deceased. The trial court convicted
the appellant of the offence charged and sentenced her
to imprisonment for life. The High Court having affirmed
the conviction and the sentence, the accused filed the
C appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. Sections 299 and 300 IPC deal with the
definition of culpable homicide and murder respectively.
D It has been repeatedly held by this Court that culpable
homicide is the genus and m1 •rder is species and that all
murders are culpable homicide but not vice versa.
Section 300 IPC, which deals with murder, provides for
the exceptions which will constitute culpable homicide
E not amounting to murder and punishable u/s 304. When
and if there is intent and knowledge then the same would
be a case of s.304 {part I) and if it is only a case of
knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and
bodily injury, then the same would be a case of s. 304
F {part II). [Para 18) [177 -C-E]
State of A. P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC
382; Abdul Waheed Khan v. State of A.P. (2002) 7 SCC 175;
Rufi ram v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 691; Augustine
Saldanha v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 10 SCC 472; State
G of UP. v. Virendra Prasad, (2004) 9 SCC 37; and Chacko v.
State of Kera/a (2004) 9 SCC 71, referred to.
1.2. When the factual background of the instant case
is tested on the principles laid down by this Court in
H various decisions, the views taken by the trial court as
~ -
-JAGRITI DEVI v. STATE OF H.P.
169
r
also by the High Court cannot be sustained. The
A
,,
deceased was sleeping in the veranda outside the house.
-..: ..
The incident took place in the morning at about 6:00 AM.
There was sunshine all around and in that broad day light
the offence was committed. Had the accused any
intention to kill the deceased, she could have done it
B
during the night. It is qu_ite clear from the record that there
was an altercation preceding the incident in which the
accused was insulted by the deceased and by doing so
the deceased provoked the accused. The deceased also
took out the 'Khukri' which was under her pillow with the c
intention of assaulting the accused and the latter in order
to save herself grappled with the deceased and during
that process she also received injuries. The prosecution
has failed to give any explanation with regard to those
injuries. Further, it is also established in evidence that the
'Khukri' used in the incident was kept by the deceased
D
under her pillow while she was sleeping in tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.