SHIVAPPA BUDAPPA KOLKAR @ BUDDAPPAGOL versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 29-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SHIVAPPA BUDAPPA KOLK.AR @ BUDDAPPAGOL 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code,· 1860: 
Sections 300, 302 and 304 Part II-Murder-Injuries inflicted likely to 
cause death-But no intention to cause death-The decease<;/ objected to the 
bullock cart of the accused from proceeding further-Thereupon, accused 
inflicted injury with an axe on the occipital region of the peceased resulting 
in depressed fracture of the skull bone-Trial court acquitted the accused- • 
But the High Court convicted the accused under S-302-Correctness oj-
Held: There was no premeditated or prearranged plan to attack the 
I 
deceased-No motive was established by the prosecution-Only one Injury 
was inflicted by the accused-Under these circumstances, it is not safe to 
draw the conclusion that the injury inflicted by the accused, if at all it was 
intended to be inflicted, by itself would be sufficient, in the ordinary course 
of nature, to cause death-Hence, accused liable to be convicted under S. 
304, Part JI. 
According to the prosecution, the deceased objected to the bullock 
cart of the appellant-accused from proceeding further. Thereupon, the 
appellant inflicted an injury with an axe on the occipital region of the 
deceased resulting in depressed fracture of the skull bone. 
The trial court acquitted the appellant. However, the High Court 
convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. 
Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellant was 
only liable to be convicted for a lesser offence under Section 304 Part 
II IPC. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1. There was no premeditated or prearranged plan to attack 
880 
I 
~ 
S.B. KOLKAR@ BUDDAPPAGOL v. STA TE 
881 
the deceased. The trial court held that the motive was not established. 
A 
On the aspect of motive the High Court did not give any definite finding 
except saying that the appellant has some cause to be aggrieved by 
certain past acts of the deceased in relation to a land dispute. However, 
the prose~ution evidence does not establish that when the appellant and 
the other accused came in the cart on the way to their _fields, they were 
B 
actuated by the intention to attack the deceased. The obstruction by the 
deceased and the quarrel that ensued as a sequel thereof is something 
which could not have been anticipated by the accused or the prosecution 
party. [884-E-F-G-H] 
2. Only one blow with an axe was dealt with and no other injury 
was inflicted on the deceased by the appellant. Having regard to the 
background in which the incident was triggered off and the conduct. of 
the appellant and in view of the very findings recorded by the High 
Court, the appellant cannot be imputed with the intention to cause the 
death of the deceased. [885-D-E] 
3. The next line of enquiry is whether the case falls under clause thirdly 
of S. 300 IPC. There is no doubt that injury inflicted on the deceased is a 
severe injury on the vital part and in all likelihood, it could cause death. Yet, 
c 
D 
it is difficult to extricate the impact of an equally severe injury, which was 
found to be present on internal examination and which cannot be attributed 
E 
to the appellant. In these circumstances, it is not safe to draw a conclusion 
that the injury inflicted, by itself would be sufficient in the ordinary course 
of nature to cause death. On the state of the medical evidence it is not 
possible to draw such a definite conclusion. Considering the nature of the 
injury and the weapon used an,d the circumstances in which the injury 
came to be inflicted, the appellant shall be imputed with the knowledge that 
the injury inflicted by him was likely to cause death. The appellant is, 
therefore, liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Penal 
Code, 1860. [885-E-F; 887-C-D-E] 
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1958] SCR 1495, relied on. 
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Ed. 21, Chapter XV 
Regional Injuries-Lungs, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 672/ 
F 
G 
~. 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2001 of the Kamataka High 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Court in Crl. A. No. 852 of 1996. 
WITH 
SLP (CRL.) @ CRL. M.P. No. 4951/2002. 
K.B. Sounder Rajan and Sudarshan Rajan for the Appellant. 
Anil Kumar Mishra, Mallikarjun Reddy and Sanja
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.