NANKAUNOO versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 19-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 627 
NANKAUNOO 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 46of2016) 
JANUARY 19, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, A.K. SIKRI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder - Victim-deceased barber 
by profession - Accused went to his shop for haircut - He insisted 
preference over other customers which victim refused and accused 
left the shop threatening the victim - In the evening when the victim 
went to the field to attend to nature :5 call, accused fired at him with 
his pistol - Gun shot hit on lower part of thigh of the victim -
Deceased died of shock and hemorrhage later in hospital -
Conviction by courts below u/s.302 - Appeal against conviction -
Held: The weapon used and the manner in which attack was made 
and the injury was inflicted due to premeditation clearly establish 
that the appellant intended to cause injury - The injury was however 
on non-vital organ - In view of nature of injury and absence of 
evidence elicited from the doctor that the said injury was sufficient 
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it is a fit case for 
conviction uls.304 Part I - Conviction modified to one uls. 304 
Part I 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Intention is different from motive. It is the intention 
with which the act is done that makes a difference in arriving at a 
conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. 
The third clause of Section 300 IPC consists of two parts. 
Under the first part it must be proved that there was an intention 
to inflict the injury and under the second part it must be proved 
that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to 
cause death. The emphasis in clause three of Section 300 IPC 
is on the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary cou..Se of nature 
to cause death. The sufficiency is the high probability of death in 
the ordinary course of nature. When the sufficiency exists and 
death follows, causing of such injury is intended and causing of 
such offence is murder. For ascertaining the sufficiency of the 
627 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
628 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016) 4 S.C.R. 
injury, sometimes the nature of the weapon used, sometimes 
the part of the body on which the injury is caused and sometimes 
both are relevant. 
The deceased sustained gunshot wound of 
entry 1-112" x 1-112" on the back and inner part of left thigh, six 
gunshot wounds of exit each 113" x 113" in size in front and 
middle left thigh. The injury was on the inner part of left thigh, 
which is the non-vital organ. Keeping in view the situs and nature 
of injury and in the absence of evidence elicited from the doctor 
thatthe said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature 
to cause death, it is a fit case where the conviction of the 
appellant under Section 302 IPC should be under Section 304 
Part 1 IPC. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 
IPC is modified as conviction under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and 
the appellant is sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous 
imprisonment. [Paras 11 to 14) [631-F-G; 633-B, D, F, G, H; 634-
A-B] 
D 
Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration) 1991 (1) 
SCR 202 : (1991) 2 SCC 32 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
1991 (1) SCR 202 
relied on 
Para 11 
E 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
46 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2013 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal 
No. 775 of 1981. 
F 
Kapil Arora, Ms. Ekshita Choudhary, Ms. Kum Kum Sen, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Mukul Singh, Adv. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 16.05.2013 passed 
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal 
Appeal No. 775 of 1981, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction 
of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and also sentence of 
H 
imprisonment for life imposed on him. 
NANKAUNOO v. STATE OF U.P. 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is as under:- Deceased-
Chhedi Lal was running a barber shop in Kurari Khurd Market. On 
18.02.1981, the appellant visited the shop ofChhedi Lal and asked for a 
haircut. An altercation took place between the two 2 when appellant 
insisted the deceased for haircut claiming preference over other 
customers; but the deceased-Chhedi Lal declined his demand. The 
appellant felt

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