LexSELLAPPAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SELLAPPAN v. ST ATE OF TAMIL NADU JANUARY 3 I, 2007 B [DR. AR!JlTPASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-'Murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to C murder'-Distinction between-The deceased married the daughter of the accused without his knowledge on account of which he was angry towards the deceased-When the deceased was on his way to bring agricultural labourers, the accused beat the deceased on his head twice with a stick- The deceased fell down and died later in the hospital-Trial court convicted D the accused under S. 302-High Court affirmed the decision-Correctness of-Held: It is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree-Even if the intention of the accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder-Jn the instant E case, the accused is responsible for causing the death of the deceased- However, S. 304 Part II /PC would be applicable and not S. 302 IPC- Conviction accordingly altered. Words & Phrases: F "Likely to cause death"-Meaning of-In the context of Clause (b) of Section 299 of the Penal Code, 1860. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day the deceased left his house to bring agricultural labourers and, while he was on his way, the appellant armed with a stick and, his son armed with an aruval, appeared before G him. On seeing them, the deceased became panicky and shouted saying that they were about to beat him. The appellant with the stick, which he had in his hand, beat the deceased on the head twice. The deceased fell down. The appellant, leaving the stick, ran away from the place followed by his sQn, who took away the aruval with him. The occurrence was witnessed by PWs 1 to 3. H 46 ,. \ SELLAPPANv. STATEOFTAMILNADU 47 -r-- The trial court found the appellant and his son guilty under Section A t· __ , y ~ 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. However, in appeal, the appellant's son was acquitted but the appellant's appeal was dismissed. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out; and that with proper treatment life of the deceased could have been saved. B Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: I. The argument regarding the absence of proper medical treatment is clearly unsustainable in view of the Explanation to Section 299 of the Penal Code, 1860. The explanation clearly contemplates that where the c death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused tire death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. [Para 25) [54-D) 2. The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to D be applied. In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC E practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is what may be called, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the F third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304. jPara 261154-E-Gl 3. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is G caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.