LexLAXMINATH versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 348 A LAXMINATH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2009) B JANUARY 16, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c S.302, 324 - Murder - Conviction - Upheld by High Court - On appeal, Held: Considering the factual scenario and the fact that one arrow was shot the offence is covered by S.304 Part I /PC and not S.302 /PC - Hence conviction D altered from S.302 /PC to S.304 Part I /PC - Custodial ,. . sentence of eight years would meet the ends of justice. S.304 Part I - Applicability of. S.299, 300 - Points of distinction between the two E offences - Discussed. In this appeal, the question for consideration was whether in view of the peculiar fact that only one arrow "f was shot from a distance, Section 302 IPC is applicable. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Clause (4) of Section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as G distinguished from a particular person or persons - being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates ,,.. to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender without any H 348 LAXMINATH v. STATE OF CHHATIISGARH 349 excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such A injury as aforesaid. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the Court. [Paras 17 and 18) [357-H; 358-A-D] 1.2. Considering the factual scenario and the facts that one arrow was shot the offence is covered by Section 304 Part I IPC and not Section 302 IPC. Though it cannot B be laid down that whenever one arrow is shot Section 302 IPC will not apply, on the facts of the present case it C appears to be so. Therefore, conviction is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Custodial sentence of eight years would meet the ends of justice. [Para 20) [358-F-GJ Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kera/a, AIR 1966 SC 1874; D Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr. 1976 (4) SCC 382; Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh JT 2002 (6) SC 27 4; Augustine Saldanha v. State of Kamataka 2003 (10) SCC 472 and Thangaiya v. E State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (9) SCC 650, relied on. Case Law Reference: AIR 1966 SC 1874 relied on Para 11 AIR 1958 SC 465 relied on Para 12 F 1976 (4) sec 382 relied on Para 19 JT 2002 (6) SC 274 relied on Para 19 2003 (10) sec 472 relied on Para 19 G 2005 (9) sec 650 relied on Para 19 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 75 of 2009. H 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A From the Judgment dated 1.3.2006 of the High Court of B Chattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 1996. Brij Bhushan for the Appellar.t. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court upholding the C conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The accused persons were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for two years respectively for the said offences. D 3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: Mahgin Bai (PW-1) lodged the F.l.R (Ex. P-1) in the Police Station Bhairamgarh on 4.2.1993 at about 12.30 p.m. to the E effect that on 3.2.1993 she was thrashing paddy in the house. At that time her mother-in-law Gangadei (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was preparing page. Accused Laxminath who is husband of her sister-in-law, came and demanded page. Her mother-in-law gave page to the accused. He thereafter F demanded tobacco, on which her mother-in-law gave him tobacco also and accused left the house. Thereafter, the accused came with bow & arrow and shot the arrow on her, which hit on h,er left upper ;;irm and blood sta'1ed oozing out of it. Accused ~lso shot an arrow on her mother-in-law, which hit on chest, blood started oozing out of the injury and accused ran G away. Her uncle-in-law Dhaniram (PW2) witnessed the incident, brought the villagers and by that time, her mother-in-law was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.