MANOJ KUMAR V. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 15-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
MANOJ KUMAR
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 795 of 2011)
MAY 15, 2018
 [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part-II and 302 – Prosecution
case that PW-1 and ‘P’ disturbed with interference of appellants on
their land had filed suit against them –  It was alleged that when ‘P’
along with PW-13 and DW-1 were returning to their village from
nearby village they came across the disputed land, suddenly,
appellants armed with weapons attacked ‘P’ and assaulted him –
Injured ‘P’ was taken to a police post, where he lodged a report –
Thereafter, he was taken to a Health Centre, where doctor-PW-4
attended him and referred him to hospital, however, on the way to
hospital his situation deteriorated and was brought back to PW-4,
who declared him dead – Trial Court convicted all the 7 accused
u/ss. 302,341 and 323 r/w.149 and ss.147 and 148 – However, High
Court acquitted 4 persons but confirmed the conviction of other 3
accused-appellants – On appeal, held: The totality of circumstances
of the case on hand would amply show that there was a sudden
verbal quarrel and evidently there was no pre-meditated plan to
attack the deceased – In view of the civil disputes already pending
between both the families, a minor verbal exchange bloated into a
sudden physical attack – In instant case, death was not
instantaneous, and ‘P’ died after sometime, due to hemorrhage –
Two simple injuries were inflicted and one turned out to be fatal
later – The circumstances demonstrates that the appellant had no
intention to cause death, though he had knowledge that the weapon
used by him to inflict injury on scalp of the deceased may cause
death – But in the absence of intention to cause death or to cause
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence does not
fall within the scope of s.300 IPC but it will fall within s.304 Part-II,
IPC – Therefore, appellants-accused (A-1,A-2 and A-3) guilty for
an offence punishable u/s.304 Part-II and not for the offence u/
s.300.
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 361
                                                 361
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The totality of circumstances of the case on hand
would amply show that there was a sudden verbal quarrel and
evidently there was no pre-meditated plan to attack the deceased.
In view of the civil disputes already pending between both the
families, a minor verbal exchange bloated into a sudden physical
attack. [Para 25] [373-D-E]
2. It is important to have a look at the evidence of PW5
who has conducted Post mortem and according to him there was
an incised wound on the right parietal region of size 4" and 10"
above right ear and another incised wound of 1" in size on the
right index finger. He has deposed that “the brain was found
congested, yet no fracture was seen on the scalp”. Though in the
cross examination he has stated at one place that the injury No 2
on the scalp might be ‘grievous’ that caused brain hemorrhage.
This particular fact is not noted in the postmortem report.
Regarding the cause of such injury, PW5 stated that it can be
caused by striking with sharp edged object and the depth of the
scalp injury depends upon the force and speed. He maintains the
stand that it was a ‘scalp injury’ and not ‘skull injury’. Moreover,
he did not measure the depth of the head injury which was
necessary for classification of injury. [Para 28] [374-E-G]
3. The force and gravity of assault indicates that the
aforesaid assault was carried out with only sufficient knowledge
of likely death of the deceased in a free fight situation. Had he
got intention to commit the murder of the deceased by inflicting
such injury, he might have used the weapon with sufficient force
and in that case, definitely it would have caused a deep injury
causing fracture of skull. This court is bound to show some
deference to this particular aspect while evaluating the facts and
circumstances of this case at hand.  [Para 30] [375-C-E]
4. In the case on hand, the death is not instantaneous, but
the deceased died after sometime, due to hemorrhage.  When
several persons of the accused group wielding weapons attacked
the deceased, it is surprising to see only two injuries, that too,
two simple injuries alone are inflicted; of course, one such simple
injury turns out to be fatal sometime later. This circumstance
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
363
demonstrates that the appellant had no intent

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