JAI PRAKASH versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 05-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAI PRAKASH 
v. 
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
..i..· 
FEBRUARY 51 1991 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVl AND 
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code-Sections 300 Clause Thirt1lY1 J02-""-Held 
'intention' if established as ingredient-Offence would be murder-
'Intention' 
'motive', 
'knowledge'-Diff1renct! 
@xplulned-Words 'r-
c 
'intention'-'Knowledge' in Section 300== True mitaning of. 
--1' 
The appellant, bad llllett eobnections with Agya Devi {P.W. 3); 
wife of the deceased and in that connection he med tu Visit her house 
... 
quite frequently to which the deceaRd wul hls two brothers & mother 
living separately in the adjacl!nt hoUSt! used to nbjed, It 11uty be pointed 
D 
that Agya Devi was related to the appellant's wife. On August 18, 1973, ~ 
at about 11 p.m. when the decelW!d was not in house, the appellant 
came to visit Agya Devi. A shortwhile later, the deceased also came 
home and he objected to the presence of the appellant whereupon an 
altercation and exchange of hot words ~nsued betwl!fli the appellot 
and the deceased. The appellant took out a kirpan (chhurra) t'rom·hts 
E 
waist and stabbed the decea8ed hi the chest. The deceased fell down 
crying that the appellant has killed him and the appellant fled away 
>--~ 
with tbe weapon. The incident was witnessed by Agya Devi (P .W. 3) 
.. 
and P. W. 2, deceased's brother from the roof of the house. The 
deceased died as a result of' the injury. The prosecution was thereupon 
launched against the appellant and the prosecution examinea arid" -
F 
amongst others P. W. 2 and P. W. 3. P. W. 3 turned hostile, with the 
· result the prosecution was left with only P.W. 2 (brother of the 
deceased) as eye witness. The trial court relied on the evidence of P,W. 
--( 
2 and also held that his eviftence was corroborated by the P.Ws. 1 and 
S'and recorded the conviction under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced ~ 
him to imprisonment for life for causing the death of Champat Ral, the 
G 
deceased, which order was later affirmed by the Delhi High Court. 
Hence this appeal by the appellant, after obtaining special leave. The 
main conteritfon of the appellant is that even if the prosecution case Is to 
be accepted, an offence of murder is not made out as the accused was 
entitled to the right -of private defence; even otherwise the ace~ >-
having inflicted only one injury which proved fatal, the offence would 
H 
be one amounting to culpable homicide. 
202 
.... 
JAi PRAKASH v. STATE 
203 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
. -~ 
HELD: 'Intention' is different trom 'motive' or ignorance or 
'negligence'. It is the 'knowledge' or 'intention' with which the act is 
done that makes difference, in arriving at a conclusion whether the 
offence is culpable homicide or murder. [208E-F] 
The language of Clause Thirdly of Section 300 speaks of intention 
at two places and in each the sequence is to be established by the 
prosecution before the case can fall in that Clause. The 'intention' and 
'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind 
and their existence has to be gathered from the circumstances, such as 
... 
the weapon used, the ferocity of atta~k, multiplicity of injuries and all 
other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the C9<le designedly 
used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and it is accepted that the 
knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing an act is not 
the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. 
Firstly, when an act is don.e by a person, it is presumed that he, must 
have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or 
could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness and not the same 
thing as 'intention' that such consequences should ensue. As compared 
to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere 
foresight of the consequences, namely the purposely doing of a thing to 
achieve a particular end. [211H-212CJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
'Knowledge' as contrasted with 'intention' signify a state of 
mental realisation with the bare state of conscious awareness of certain 
facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive. On the other 
hand, 'intention' is a conscious state in which mental faculties are 
aroused into activitI and summoned into action for the purpose of 
achieving a conceived end. [213B-C] 
. 
F 
The circumstances. would show that the accused intentionally 
inflicted ttiat injury though it may not be pre-meditated on

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