LAXMAN versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 338 · Decided: 18-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LAX MAN 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
SEPTEMBER 18. 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Penal Code. 1860: Sections 300, 302 and 304 Part I. 
Murder-Culpable homicide not amounting to 11111rder-Distinc1ion 
C between-Accused stopped the deceased and shot an arrow from a distance 
which hit the deceased who fell down and died immediately-Trial courl, 
placing reliance on the evidence of eye-witnesses, convicled lhe accused under 
Ss. 148. 3021149 and 3241149-But High Court convicted /he accused only 
under S. 302--Correc//less of-Held: All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' bu/ 
D not vice-versa--'Culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder 
is 'cu/pahle homicide not amounling to murder '-Arroll's \l'ere being shol 
fi"om a dis1a11ce, no/ wilh any accuracy--One of such arrows hit lhe deceased-
Hence. com'iclion allered to one under S. 304 Part I. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
"Sufficient in the ordinWJ' course of nature "-Meaning of-In the context 
of S. 300 Clause (3) of the Penal Code, 1860. 
According to the prosecution, the appellant-accused stopped the 
deceased and shot an arrow from a distance which hit the deceased who 
F fell down and died immediately. The appellant and eight persons were 
prosecuted for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of the 
Penal Code, 1860. Placing reliance on the evidence of eye-witnesses, the 
trial court found the appellant guilty of the offences. In appeal, the High 
Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Hence the appeal. 
G 
H 
On behalf of the appellant-accused, it was contended that the 
occurrence took place in the course of a sudden quarrel and, therefore, 
the conviction was not correct and that, in any event, Section 302 IPC had 
no application to the facts of the prefent case. 
338 
•. 
LAX MAN v. STATE OF M.P. 
339 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: I. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. 
Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of 
murder is culpable homicide not anwunting to murder'. For the purpose 
of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, 
the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first B 
is what may be called 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the 
greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 IPC 
as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the 
second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC. 
Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest C 
type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the 
lowest among the punishment for the three grades. Culpable homicide of 
this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304. 
(343-A, B, q 
2. Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC corresponds with Clauses (2) and D 
(3) of Section 300 IPC. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite 
under Clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the 
particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that 
the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the 
fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient 
to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy E 
that the 'intention to cause death' is not an essential requirement of Clause 
(2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the 
offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of 
the particular \'ictim is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of 
the clause. This aspect of Clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) F 
appended to Section 300 IPC. 1344-D, E, Fl 
3. Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC does not postulate any such 
knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases of falling under 
Clause (2) of Section 300 IPC can be where tlie assailant causes death by 
a fist blow intentionally gi\'en knowing that the victim is suffering from G 
an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is 
likely to cause death of that particular person as a result of the rupture 
of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the 
assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or special frailty of the 
victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the 
ordinary course of nature to cause
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.