LITTA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1118 · Decided: 26-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 1118 
LITTA SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2009) 
APRIL 26, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s.304 (part 11)134 - Accused causing injuries to victim -
Death of victim the following day - Conviction uls 302134 and 
sentence of life imprisonment, affirmed by High Court - Held: 
The instant case falls uls 304 (part II) - Although appellants 
had no intention to cause death but it can safely be inferred 
0 
that they knew that such bodily injury was likely to cause death 
- Therefore, appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder - Accordingly judgments of courts below 
are modified and conviction u/s 302 is converted to 304(part-
I/) - Appellants are sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. 
E 
WORDS AND PHRASES: 
Expression, 'maro maro' - Connotation of. 
The appellants along with their father were 
prosecuted for causing death of the brother of PW1. The 
F prosecution case was that two days prior to the incident 
a quarrel took place between the deceased and the father 
of the appellants. On the date of incident at about 7 p.m. 
the appellants and their father assaulted the deceased 
with sticks and 'gandasi'. He succumbed to his injuries 
G the following day in the hospital. The trial court convicted 
both the appellants u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced them 
to imprisonment for life. Their father was acquitted giving 
him benefit of doubt. The High Court affirmed the 
conviction and the sentence. 
H 
1118 
LITIA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
1119 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 There is no evidence from the side of the 
prosecution that the accused persons pre-planned to 
cause death and with that intention they were waiting for 
the deceased coming from the field and then with an 
B 
intention to kill the deceased they assaulted him. The 
trial court noticed the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 who 
alleged to have heard the noise "MARO MARO", which 
can only mean to beat or to cause assault and not 'to kill'. 
The High Court has wrongly mentioned the term as 'kill'. 
C 
However, considering the nature of the injury caused to 
the deceased and the weapons i.e. 'lathi' and 'gandasi' 
(sickle) used by them, it cannot be ruled out that they 
assaulted the deceased with the knowledge that the 
injury may cause death. [paras 13 and 16 -17] [1129-C; 
1131-A-B, D-E] 
D 
1.2 It is well settled proposition of law that the 
intention to cause death with the knowledge that the 
death will probably be caused, is very important 
consideration for coming to the conclusion that death is 
indeed a murder with intention to cause death or the 
knowledge that death will probably be caused. From the 
testimonies of the witnesses, it does not reveal that the 
accused persons intended to cause death and with that 
intention they started inflicting injuries on the body of the 
deceased. Even more important aspect is that while they 
were beating the deceased the witnesses reached the 
place and shouted whereupon the accused persons 
immediately ran away instead of inflicting more injuries 
with intent to kill the deceased. [para 18] [1131-F-G] 
Gurdip Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 
14 relied on. 
E 
F 
G 
1.3 In the instant case, after analyzing the entire 
evidence, it becomes evidently clear that the occurrence 
H 
1120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 2 S.C.R. 
A took place suddenly and there was no premeditation on 
the part of the appellants. There is no evidence that the 
appellants made special preparation for assaulting the 
deceased with the intent to kill him. There is no dispute 
that the appellants assaulted deceased in such a manner 
B that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which was 
sufficient to cause death, but this Court is convinced that 
the injury was not intended by the appellants to kill the 
deceased. [para 20] [1133-C-E] 
1.4 In the considered opinion of the Court the instant 
C case falls u/s 304 (part II) IPC. Although the appellants 
had no intention to cause death but it can safely be 
inferred that they knew that such bodily injury was likely 
to cause death. Therefore, the appellants are guilty of 
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 
D Accordingly, the judgments of the courts below are 
modified and the conviction u/s 302 is converted to 304 
(part-II) IPC. The appellants are sentenced to ten years' 
imprisonment. [paras 21-22] [1133-E-G] 
E 
lshwar Singh vs.

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