RAMESH KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 04-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAMESH KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 4, 1993 
IDR. A.S. ANAND AND N.P. SlNGH, .I.I.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 34 and 304 Pmt II-Death due to 
injwies caused by kicks, fist blows and dragging after tying rope around neck 
of deceased--T1ial Cowt convicting accused to life imp1isomnent under 
C Section 302/34-High Cowt modif)ing conviction to one under Section 304, 
Pa1t JJ/34 and seflfencing to seven years' 1igorous in1p1isonn1ent-Whether 
justified-Held: "Sentence awarded by High Court was lenient-But sentence 
not enhanced keejJing in view the fact that accused would have already 
undergone the sentencc-Howeve1; fine imposed additionally to be paid. to 
deceased's son. 
D 
Three of the respondents along with another person (since 
deceased) were tried for the murder of the appellant's father. The Sessions 
Judge convicted the three respondents under Section 302/34 IPC and 
sentenced then1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. One of the 
E respondents was also convicted under Section 379 of the Code for stealing 
articles from the person of the deceased, though no separate sentence was 
awarded for the same. 
The three respondents preferred appeal before the High Court 
against their conviction. The High Court, concurred with the findings of 
F the trial court as regards the guilt of the respondents, but found that 
conviction of the respondents under section 302/34 JPC, in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, was not justified and accordingly altered their 
sentence of imprison1nent of life to sentence of seven years' rigorous 
imprisonment under Section 3114/Part II read with Section 34 IPC. It 
G maintained the conviction of one of the respondents under Section 379. 
In the appeal before this Court filed by the deceased's son-the 
appellant, nearly after seven years of the 
High Court's order, it \Vas 
subn1ittcd that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court 
had erred in rnodifying the conviction of the accused fro1n ~1n offence under 
H Section 3112/34 to one under Seetion 304 Part 11/34 IPC, that the "'-'pon-
47? 
RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OFB!HAR 
473 
dents surprised the deceased, who was going to his paddy fields and after A 
relieving him of a loaded pistol, assaulted him with fist blows, slaps and 
kicks and then tied his neck with a rope and dragged him with 
premeditated intention to kill him and that lhe murder was gruesome one 
and since the method of hanging was used and the respondents had shared 
the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, they should 
not only have been convicted for an offence under Section 302/34 !PC put 
also awarded the capital punishment of death. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that from the estab-
lished circumstances on record, intention on the part of the accused to 
commit the murder of the deceased was not at all discernible. 
Allowing the appeal partly, this Court 
B 
c 
HELD : 1. There is no doubt that the respondent~ along with another 
person (since deceased) assaulted the deceased on the fateful day. !he 
prosecution has successfully established on record that the three respon-
D · 
dents committed the crime and the courts below were right in their 
findings to that effect. However, keeping in view the occular testimony and 
the medical evidence, it is difficult to hold that the accused-respondents 
had intended to cause the injuries on the deceased, which were sufficient 
in ordinary course of nature to cause to death. The facts proved by the 
prosecution and the established circumstances on record go to show that 
the case does not fall within any of the four clauses of the definition of 
murder contained in Section 300 IPC. (476-C, G; 477-B] 
E 
2. In causing the injuries the respondents must be attributed the 
knowledge that by their acts they were likely to cause the death of the 
F 
deceased, though without any intention to cause his death or to cause such 
bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The offence would, therefore, be 
'culpable homicide' not amounting to murder' as per the third clause of 
Section 299 IPC punishable under Section 304 Part ll/34 IPC. Hence, the 
judgment of the High Court insofar as it records the conviction of the G 
respondents under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC is con-
cerned does not call for any interference. (477-B-D] 
3. Though the 
sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment 
awarded by the High Court is rather lenient an

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