PRASAD PRADHAN & ANR. versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 24-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
241
PRASAD PRADHAN & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 2025 of 2022)
JANUARY 24, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Prosecution
case that appellant/accused and the victim were cousins – On the
afternoon of 28.02.2012, when the victim was getting his land
levelled through a JCB machine, the appellants (A-1 and A-2)
reached the place and attacked him – It was alleged that A-1 was
armed with an axe and he attacked the victim on the head – Against
A-2, the allegation was that he was armed with an axe and had
assaulted the victim on the legs – Regarding A-3, the grandson of
A-1 and son of A-2, the allegation was that he went to the spot and
caught hold of the victim – Victim sustained several injuries including
head injuries – He was taken to the hospital and was examined by
a doctor (PW11) – As serious head injuries were involved, the victim
was operated by another doctor (PW15) – However, the victim could
not survive and died on 22.03.2012 – PW14, doctor conducted the
post-mortem and, in his report, (Ex. P-28), stated that death was
caused by injuries sustained by the victim on the head – Trial Court
convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment,
for the offence of murder, and six months rigorous imprisonment
for the offence u/s.323 IPC – High Court acquitted A-3 on both
counts, but affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants
(A1 and A2) – Held: The nature of the attack by the appellants and
the quality of eyewitness testimony of prosecution witnesses,
especially PW1 to PW5, cannot be doubted – The circumstance that
most of the witnesses were related to the deceased does not per se
exclude their testimony – Appellants were armed, a fact which shows
pre-meditation on their part – Appellants attacked victim on the
head, which is a vital part of the body, thus taking undue advantage
of their situation – Lapse of time i.e. victim dying after 20 days,
would not per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the
offender’s liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 241
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
homicide, not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellants, upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The circumstance that most of the witnesses were
related to the deceased does not per se exclude their testimony.
Although PW1 is the deceased’s daughter, that is insufficient to
doubt the veracity of what she recounted during the trial, which
is that she saw the appellants attack her father with axes. She
tried to intervene and save the deceased, upon which she was
also given axe blows on her leg. There is no explanation on the
part of the appellants as to why the witness should depose falsely;
nor is there any explanation as to how she could have received
her injuries. Most importantly, her testimony is corroborated by
PW2, PW3 and PW4. [Para 14][249-D-F]
2. To determine the culpability of appellants whether they
are guilty for the offence of murder, punishable under Section
302, or whether they are criminally liable under the less severe
Section 304, IPC, several previous judgements of this Court may
be relied upon. [Paras 15 and 16][249-G-H]
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [1958] SCR 1495; State
of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr.
[1977] SCR 1 601 and Pulicherla Nagaraju @
Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11
SCC 444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633 – relied on.
3. The requirement of Section 300 IPC thirdly is fulfilled if
the prosecution proves that the accused inflicted an injury which
would been sufficient to have resulted in death of the victim.
The determinative fact would be the intention to cause such injury
and what was the degree of probability (gravest, medium, or the
lowest degree) of death which determines whether the crime is
culpable homicide or murder. [Para 18][256-E]
4. The case law on the issue of the nature of injury being so
dangerous as to result in death (Section 300 fourthly), have
emphasised on the accused’s disregard to the consequences of
the injury, and an element of callousness to the result, which
denotes or signifies the intention. [Para 19][256-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Prasad, [1968] 2 SCR
522 and Santosh S/o. Shankar Pawar v. State of
Maharashtra (2015) 7 SCC 641 : [2015] 4 SCR 962–
relied on.
5. In the present case, th

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