LexRAJ KUMAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t [2009] 11 S.C.R. 49 RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1233 of 2009) JULY 15, 2009 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Husband inflicted blow on wife with a Stone Rolling Pad (Po/pat) - Wife taken to hospital where she ultimately died - Motive for the offence stated to C be refusal of wife to withdraw maintenance proceedings instituted by her u/s. 125 CrPC - Two dying declarations, one before Executive Magistrate and other before Head Constable, in both of which, deceased wife implicated Jhe husband - Conviction by Courts below uls.302 - Dispute o raised as to whether the offence committed was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Held: Deceased wife was totally unarmed - Husband inflicted blow with Po/pat on vital part of deceased's body with such great force that it resulted in her death - Clearly the intention of E husband was to cause that vety injuty which ultimately proved fatal - Medical evidence showed that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Offence committed by husband therefore would be punishable as murder under s.302 - His case would not fall under the F first part or the second part of s.304 . According to the prosecution, the appellant inflicted a blow on the head of his wife with a Stone Rolling Pad (Polpat) as she refused to' withdraw the maintenance proceedings initiated by her against the appellant under G s.125 CrPC. Consequent to the blow, appellant's wife I was taken to the hospital in an injured condition where she ultimately died. At the hospital, two dying 49 H 50 SUPREME COU,RT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A declarations of the deceased were recorded - one by the ;t. Executive Magistrate and another by the Head Constable, in both of which, she accu.sed the appellant. Appellant was convicted by the courts below under B ss.302 and 498A IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court ) ~ HELD: 1.1. There is no universal rule that whenever c a single blow is inflicted resulting into death of the victim, the case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC. Each case of single blow has to be decided on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case. [Para 11] (61-C-D] 0 1.2. Whenever a Court is confronted with the . question whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first .E stage would be whether the accused has done an act by I doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to F culpable· homicide as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima, facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 IPC is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the G prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the i four clauses of the definition of murder contained in Section 300 IPC. If the answer to this question is in the _._ negative, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part I or Part II of H -+ RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 51 Section 304 IPC, depending, respectively, on whether A second or third clause of Section 299 IPC is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under the B First Part of Section 304 IPC. The above are, however, only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives. [Para 12] [61-E-H; 62-A-B] 2. In the present case, two dying declarations of the C deceased were recorded - one by the Executive Magistrate and another by the Head Constable. In both the dying declarations, the deceased has given consistent version of the incident in question. In both the dying declarations it was stated by her that because she had refused to withdraw the maintenance proceedings D initiated by her against the appellant, the appellant had entered her room and inflicted blow on her head wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.