PAPPU @ HARI OM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 31-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 230 
A 
PAPPU @ HARi OM 
v. 
ST ATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 31, 2009 
-
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR. 
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.304(Part II) - Gun shot injuries on 
c shoulder - Resulting in death - Conviction under s.302 -
Affirmed by High Court -- Held: Considering the part of body 
where bullet fired hit the deceased,· appropriate conviction 
would be under s.304 Part II - Custodia/ sentence of 8 years 
would meet ends of justice - Accused having suffered custody 
D of more than that period ordered to be released forthwith. 
;,. 
; 
Prosecution case was that deceased along with 
prosecution witnesses was playing cards on Diwali night. 
Appellant and co-accused came there and asked them to 
E permit them to play. Deceased objected to it which gave 
rise to quarrel between him and the appellant and co-
accused. Both appellant and co-accused went away and 
after some time, they returned back. Appellant had 12 
bore gun in his hand. Appellant fired gun shots which 
F 
caused injuries on the right shoulder of deceased and he 
fell down. He was taken to hospital where he was 
y 
declared dead. Trial Court convicted appellant under 
s.302 IPC. High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the 
appeal. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. There was no reason to discard the 
prosecution version. PW-10 who reached the spot after 
hearing the sound of firing stated that when he reached 
H 
230 
.. 
PAPPU @HARi OM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
231 
the spot he found that deceased was lying in an injured A 
condition:The deceased told that the accused persons 
had fired. Since there was wound on the chest of the 
· deceased he was taken to the hospital. In his evidence 
PW-14 stated that on the night of occurrence at about 
.... 
9.30 p.m. which was Diwali night he was playing cards 
B 
-; 
with four others, co-accused and the appellant came 
there. There was exchange of hot words between the 
accused with the deceased and the appellant fired the 
shot and caused injuries on the chest of the deceased 
who died while being taken to the hospital. [Para 6] [234- c 
E-G] 
2. It is the degree of probability of death which 
determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, 
-
medium or the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in clause 
(b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as 
D 
1' 
distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily 
injury ....... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to 
cause death" mean that death will be the "most 
probable" result of the injury, having regard to the 
ordinary course of nature. For cases to fall within clause 
E 
(3), it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause 
death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional 
bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the 
ordinary course of nature. (Paras 10 and 11] (238-A-C] 
F 
'( 
Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kera/a AIR (1966) SC 187 4 
and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1958) SC 465, relied 
on. 
3. Under clause thirdly of Section 3001PC, culpable 
G 
homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are 
satisfied: i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done 
' 
with the intention of causing death or is done with the 
.. 
intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury 
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course 
of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was 
H 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which, 
in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause 
death, viz., that the injury found to be present was the 
injury that was intended to be inflicted. Considering the 
part of the body where the bullet fired hit the deceased, 
B the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 
...
Part II IPC. Custodial sentence of 8 years would meet the 
ends of justice. The record showed that the appellant has 
suffered custody of more than that period. He shall be 
released forthwith. (Paras 15 and 20] (240-B-D; 241-E] 
' 
C. 
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 274; 
Augustine Saldanha v. State of Kamataka (2003) 1 SCC 472; 
D 
Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC 650 and 
Sunder Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 1 SCC 371, relied 
't 
on. 
Case Law Reference:
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.