LexSHEIKH RAFI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- ;, SHEIKH RAFI A v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. APRIL 24, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B " """ Penal Code 1860-Ss. 300 "Thirdly" & 302-Murder-Accused chased deceased and then stabbed him with knife-19 injuries caused in quick succession-Injuries on vital body parts-Held; Knife was indiscriminately c used-Injuries were caused in a cruel and unusual manner-19 injuries caused in quick succession cannot be said to have been caused as a result of grave and sudden provocation-Very fact that so many injuries were caused in quick succession and particularly where the deceased being unarmed and in a helpless situation, is sufficient to indicate that s. 300 "Thirdly" was attracted-Charge of murder proved D f According to the prosecution, in context to a dispute with regard to share in the joint family property, a quarrel took place between Appellant and his brother pursuant to which the former chased the latter with a knife and inflicted injuries by stabbing indiscriminately. The injuries proved fatal Trial E Court held Appellant guilty u/s 302 IPC. High Court upheld the conviction In appeal to this Court the question which arose for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Appellants liable to be held guilty only under Part II of Section 304, IPC and not under Section 302 ,,. ,. IPC Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. Although, in a given case, the number of injuries on the person of the deceased may not be the determinative factor, the same, however, is relevant. 19 injuries have been inflicted by the appellant, as had been found by the autopsy surgeon. Nature of the injuries and the different parts of the body of the deceased whereupon the same were inflicted clearly go to show G that the knife was indiscriminately used. Injuries had been caused to vital parts of the body of the deceased namely chest, abdomen. His lungs and liver were also damaged. [Paras 12 and 13) [471-A, B; 472-D) 1.2. Appellant evidently intended to cause grievous injuries to the 467 H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S. C.R. A deceased. The deceased was unarmed. He was merely resisting infliction of " ·- injuries on him by a knife and in the process the appellant also received minor injuries and that too on his thigh, palm and shoulder. Such minor injuries received by the appellant were not required to be explained by the prosecution. [Paras 14 and 15) [472-E, F) B 2. Incident did not take place at or near the house of the appellant Deceased might have picked up quarrel with his mother in the morning but the same by itself cannot be treated to be relevant for the purpose of ~ determining the nature of the offence. What would amount to a "murder" is ~ stated in Section 300, IPC. What is necessary for attracting the said provision c inter alia would be that if the person committing the act, knew that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Exceptions to the said rule would be attracted only when the offender is deprived of his power of self control which is caused by grave and sudden provocation by the deceased or any other person, or by mistake or accident Exceptions appended to Section 300 are subject to D the provisos contained therein. (Paras 16 and 17) [472-F, G; 473-A) Virsa Singh v. State of Panjab, AIR (1958) SC 465; Vadla Chandraiah ' v. State of A.P., (2006) 14 SCALE 108 and Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 3 SCALE 90, relied on E 3.1. Each case must be judged its own facts. The distinctive feature in the present case are the injuries which have been caused in a cruel. and unusual manner. Apart from the purported quarrel picked up by the deceased with his mother, there is no immediate provocation which can be said to be the immediate cause leading to the assault. The deceased was chased and the F injuries have been inflicted on a main road and that too before a hospital. It ., .. was caused in the evening before a large number of person. He could have been caught and disarmed only by a constable. Evidently others including PW- 5 and PW-7 who had been witnessing the occurrence, did not even dare to do so. [Paras 19 and 21) (474-D; 475-B, CJ G Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 327, distinguished. 3.2. Nineteen injuries caused in quick succession cannot be said to have been caused as a resu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.