RAMASHRAYAAND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 23-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAMASHRAYAAND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
FEBRUARY 23, 2001 
[U.C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKR!SHNAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302134 and 304 Part II. 
Murder-Offence of-Conversion-To culpable homicide-Necessary cir-
cumstances for-Accused inflicted serious injuries on the skull and all over the 
body of deceased-Accused took the plea that death resulted due to sudden 
quarrel and there ivas neither pre-meditation nor intention to cause death-
Held : From the nature of injuries it is clear that all the ingredients of the 
offence of murder are made out-There is intention to cause death and the 
injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death-Plea of 
accused rejected-S. 302 Pt. 11 not applicable and accused rightly convicted 
under S. 302. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Murder"-Meaning of-Jn the context of S. 300 of the Penal Code, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
l~ 
E 
The appellants-accused were convicted by the trial court under Sec-
tion 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court confirmed the convic-
tion. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, the accused persons 
F 
inflicted severe injuries on the skull and all over the body of the deceased 
~-
after the wordy altercation and quarrel with the deceased. 
On behalf of the accused persons it was contended that there was no 
pre-meditation and the quarrel took place all of a sudden; that the ac-
cused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased; that the offence 
committed by the accused was not "murder" but only "culpable homicide" 
and, therefore, the accused were liable to be punished under Section 304 
PartIIIPC. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
75 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
r 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
HELD: FrJm the nature oflrtjuries and the origin and genesis of the 
Incident, it could be spelt out that all the ingredients of the offence of 
murder defined Jnder Section 300 or the Penal Code, 1860 are made out 
and It Is not possible to bring the offence within any of the five exceptions 
or Section 300 JPC. Therefore, Section 304 IPC cannot be invoked. The 
appellants' argument that there was no Intention on the part or accused to 
cause the death of the deceased cannot be accepted in view or the nature of 
irtjuries sustained by the deceased. Though the quarrel between the ac· 
cosed and the deceased ensued after a wordy altercation. a series of irtju· 
ries were caused by the accused on the skull and all over the body of the 
deceased. Both the appellants had brutally attacked the deceased. Having 
regard to the nature of the injuries and the circumstances under which the 
injuries came to be inflicted, it is clearly established that the appellants had 
the intention to cause the death of the deceased and the injuries caused 
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The 
appellants have been rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC. (82-A-D] 
State of M.P. v. Jhaddu, (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 545; Morcha v. State of 
Rajasthan, (1979) 1 SCC 161; Madan/al v. State of Punjab, (1992) Supp. 2 
SCC 233; Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1995) SC 
1453; Santosh v. State of M.P., [1975] 3 SCC 727; Kapur Singh v. State of 
PEP SU, AIR (1956) SC 654; W Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR (1956) SC 116; 
!Axman Kalu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1960) SC 1390; Ramesh Kumar 
v. State of Bihar, [1994] Supp. 1 SCC 116; Afrahim Sheikh v. State of West 
Benga4 AIR (1964) SC 1263 and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1958) 
SC 465, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
132-134 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.98 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Crl.A. Nos. 568, 950 and 951 of 1989. 
Ms. N. Annapoorani, (A.C.) for the Appellants. 
Ms. Kamakhsi S. Mehlwal and Uma Nath Singh for the 'Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J, The appellants herein challenge their 
H 
conviction and sentence under Section 302 !PC read with Section 34 !PC. 
)• 
--
RAMASHRAYA v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 
77 
They were tried by the Fourth Addi. Sessions Judge, Raipur, alleging that they 
caused the death of one Ajeet. The prosecution case was that on 19.12.1987 
when the deceased Ajeet and his son, Laljee, were doing some worlc in their 
paddy field, the appellants came there in their bullock cart. Deceased Ajeet 
was grazing his buffaloes near his field and a little away, his son Laljee, was 
collect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.