KAILASH versus ST ATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 793 · Decided: 29-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA

Judgment (excerpt)

KAI LASH 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF M.P. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Penai Code, 1860 
Sections 300, 302 and 304 Part JI-Death caused by single blow-Plea C 
of self-defence raised by accused-Quarrel between parties not disputed-
Oral evidence inconsistent with medical evidence-Oral evidence stating 
that blow caused by sharp cutting weapon-Medical evidence stating that 
blow caused by hard and blunt object-Trial Court and High Court recording 
conviction under Section 302 proceeding on the basis that deceased suffered 
an incised wound caused by sharp cutting weapon-Two out of three accused D 
persons acquitted by trial court and their acquittal not challenged-injury 
on body of one of the accused persons not explained by prosecution-Held, 
there are sufficient materials on record to establish that deceased suffered 
single blow at the hands of accused person on a sudden provocation and 
without any pre-meditation-In the facts, conviction altered from Section E 
302 to Section 304, Part JI. 
Criminal Trial-Appreciation of evidence-Inconsistency between 
medical and ocular evidence-Effect-Held, reliance upon one or the other 
evidence would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and 
no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor. 
F 
Prosecution alleged that accused-appellant along with Band P came to 
the house of R armed with axe, lathi and musal and asked R not to construct 
wall on their land and to do so on his own land and when R asserted that the 
land belonged to him, appellant gave a blow by sharp side of axe on his head 
and B gave a blow on his chest by musal. S - PW3, wife of R, rushed to save G 
him but she was assaulted by P by inflicting lathi blow on her head and 
shoulder. Case was instituted against accused persons under Sections 324 
and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and upon death ofR, offence was altered 
to Section 302 IPC. Post mortem examination revealed only one injury to have 
793 
ll 
794 
SUPREME COURT RCPORTS 12006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A been suffered by deceased. Trial Court acquitted Band P holding that they 
had no role to play in the commission of offence but convicted appellant for 
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC principally relying 
upon the testimony ofS- PW3. State did not prefer any appeal against acquittal 
of B and P. Appellant filed appeal challenging his conviction which was 
B dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Appellant contended tnat no case was made out against appellant under 
Section 302 IPC as no cut injury was found on the body of deceased by doctor 
conducting autopsy and also as PW-4 had given statement that B had inflicted 
injury on the head of deceased ; and that since deceased suffered only one 
C blow on his person in the course of quarrel as a result whereof both groups 
suffered injuries, only a case under Section 304, Part H should have been 
made out 
Respondent contended that infliction of one injury by accused may be 
sufficient to hold him guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 
DIPC. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. I. The medical evidence apparently evidently does not tally with 
the ocular evidence. The post mortem examination on the dead body was 
E conducted by PW-16. According to the said witness, the wound was caused by 
striking with a hard, heavy and blunt object. PW-16 in his evidence 
categorically stated that under no circumstances injury could be caused by a 
sharp cutting weapon. He was definitely of the opinion that the injury was 
caused by a hard and blunt substance. Two doctors, PW-11 and PW-12, 
examined the deceased and treated him. According to PW-11, a fracture was 
F found in the bone of left temple and such an injury may be caused due to fall 
on or colliding with a solid object. PW-12 in his deposition stated that the 
deceased suffered a cut injury. (800-E; 798-F-Gl 
1.2. The place of injury was on the partial region. In certain situation, 
G the wounds produced by a blunt instrument may simulate appearances of an 
incised wound. The possibility of the deceased, thus, having been hit by a hard 
and blunt weapon cannot be ruled out [800-F; 801-E-Fl 
Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, [1978( 4 SCC 453, referred to. 
H 
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Glaister and Rentoul, 
KAI LASH v. STATE OF M.P. 
795 
referred to. 
A 
1.3. A holistic view of the matter in a case of this nature was required 
to be taken. Both the Sess

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