LexRICHHPAL SINGH MEENA versus GHASI @ GHISA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 857 RICHHPAL SINGH MEENA v. GHASI @ GHISA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 2005) JULY 4, 2014 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 325134, 302134 - Homicide ...,... A B Conviction by trial court u/s.302134 - High Court altered C conviction to one u/s.325134 - Held: Assailants gave two /athi blows to the victim-deceased which fractured his ribs and pierced his lungs resulting in his death - The injuries were not accidental or unintentional - Assailants had a common intention of grievously injuring the deceased - The opinion D of the doctor confirmed that the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the normal course - Consequently, the homicide was a culpable homicide - Assailants were guilty of the murder, the offenc~ falling u/ s.300 (thirdly) of the /PC and punishable u/s.302. E - Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In certain cases, this Court despite a homicide have convicted the accused only for voluntarily causing grievous hurt apparently not considering or F overlooking the provision of Sections 299 and 304, IPC. Such a consideration is important not only from the jurisprudential point of view but also from the sentencing point of view. From the jurisprudential point of view it is important because when an act or omission of an G accused causes the death of any person, he or she is either guilty of culpable homicide or guilty of not-culpable homicide. The issue of sentencing is also of utmost importance. The reason is the quantum of punishment to 857 H 858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • [2014] 9 S.C.R. A be imposed in a given situation. A five-step inquiry is necessary: (i) Is there a homicide? (ii) If yes, is it a culpable homicide or a 'not-culpable homicide'? (iii) If it is a culpable homicide, is the offence one of culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 300 of the IPC) B or is it a culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 of the IPC)? (iv) If it is a 'not-culpable homicide' then a case under Section 304-A of the IPC is made out. (v) If it is not possible to identify the person who has committed the homicide, the provisions of c Section 72 of the IPC may be invoked. Where it is possible to ascertain who is responsible for the homicide, the five- step inquiry can easily be carried out. [Paras 16, 42, 43, 46 and 47] [866-D; 876-C-E; 877-G-H; 878-A-B, E] State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh (1976) 1 SCC 588; D Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 372; Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1988) Supp. SCC 456 - referred to. 2. Applying the five-step inquiry, it is clear that: (i} E there was a homicide; (ii) the assailants gave two lathi blows to the deceased which resulted in the fracture of his ribs and piercing of his lungs. The injuries were not accidental or unintentional - the assailants had a common intention of grievously injuring the deceased F and it is not as if they intended to cause some injury to him other that the ones inflicted. (iii) the opinion of the doctor confirmed that the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the normal course. Consequently, the homicide was a culpable homicide. 'G' G and 'L' are guilty of the murder, the offence falling under Section 300 (thirdly) of the IPC and punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. [Paras 48] [878-F-H; 879-A] Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. (1999) 1 SCC 168; Jamai/ Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 221 - held H inapplicable. RICHHPAL SINGH MEENA v. GHASI @ GHISA 859 Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465: 1958 A SCR 1495 - relied on. Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. (2008) 1 SCC 791: 2007 (11) SCR 987; State of Punjab v. Ba/winder Singh (2012) 2 SCC 182: 2012 (1) SCR 45; Alister Anthony Pereira v. State of 8 Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648: 2012 (1) SCR 145; State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450: 2012 (12) SCR 881; State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh (1976) 1 SCC 588; Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 372; Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1988) Supp. SCC 456; Ninaji Raoji C Boudha v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 2 SCC 117: 1976 (3) SCR 428; Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. (1999) 1 SCC 168; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 221; Sk. Karimullah v. State of A. P. (2009) 11 SCC ~71: 2009 (1) SCR 953; .Abdul Waheed Khan v. State of A.P. (2002) 7 SCC 175: 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 703; Rajwant Singh v. State D of Kera/a 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.