LexM.B. SURESH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 99 M.B. SURESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2007) JANUARY 06, 2014 [CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B c ss. 299, 302 and 307 - Victim shot at from a distant range - Death of victim on the way to village - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court uls 302 of accused who fired the shots - Held: The doctor, who conducted post- mortem examination, found no internal injuries and opined 0 that gun was fired from a distant range - He further opined that death was caused because of shock but he has not stated that it was due to the injuries caused by appellant or that deceased profusely bled which could have caused shock - It is not shown that the injuries found on the person of the E deceased were of such nature, which in the ordinary course of nature could cause shock - It, therefore, creates a doubt as to whether deceased suffered shock on account of injuries sustained by him - However, it has been proved that appellant shot at deceased with an intention to kill him or at least he had the knowledge that the act would cause death F - Allegations proved constitute an offence u/s 307 - Conviction of appellant is altered from s. 302 to s. 307 and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The appellant (in Crl. A. No. 985 of 2007) and his G father (appellant in Crl. A. No. 21 of 2014) were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss 302, 114 and 427, IPC ands. 3 read with ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case was that there was a long standing 99 - H 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A enmity between the family of the informant and the accused in respect of certain land over which appellant's father was claiming tenancy rights. On the date of occurrence while the informant (PW-1) and others were going to the coffee estate and their companion 'C' was B ahead of them, the appellant fired at 'C'. After the first shot, his father instigated him to fire again. The appellant fired for the second time at 'C' and thereafter they left the place. P.Ws. 1 to 3, took the victim to the village, but he died on the way. The trial court acquitted both the C accused of all the charges. However, the High Court, reversed their acquittal and held the appellant guilty of offences punishable u/ss 302 and 427, IPC and s. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC and imprisonment for one year u/s 27 of the Arm Act. Both of them were also convicted and sentenced D to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for offence u/s 427, IPC. Disposing of the appeals, the Court E HELD: 1.1.For holding an accused guilty of murder, the prosecution has first to prove that it is a culpable homicide, as defined u/s 299, IPC and an accused will come under the mischief of this section only when the act done by him has caused death. [para 6] [106-B-C] 1.2. In the instant case, the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, was categorical in his evidence that no internal injuries were found and the gun was fired from a distant range. As regards the cause of death, he has opined that it was because of shock but G he has nowhere stated that it was due to the injuries caused by the appellant or that the deceased profusely bled which could have caused shock. It cannot be ignored that the case of the prosecution itself is that after the deceased sustained injuries while he was being H M.B. SURESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 101 taken to the hospital for treatment, he died on the way. A Any mishandling of the deceased by the person carrying him to the hospital so as to cause shock cannot be ruled out. It, therefore, creates a doubt as to whether the deceased suffered shock on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is not shown that the injuries found B on the person of the deceased were of such nature, which in the ordinary course of nature could cause shock. It cannot be assumed that those injuries can cause shock in the absence of any evidence in this regard. There is no evidence to show that it was the injury C inflicted by the appellant which was the cause of death. Thus, it cannot be held that it is the act of the appellant which caused the death. Therefore, conviction of the appellant u/s 302, IPC cannot be sustained. [para 6] [106- A-B, C-G] D 2.1. However, it has been proved that the appellant shot at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.