LexSOM RAJ @ SOMA versus STATE OF H.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 433 SOM RAJ @ SOMA v. STATE OF H.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1772 of 2008) FEBRUARY 22, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- s.302- Assault with deadly weapon A B on vital part of the body causing death of a person - Appellant inflicted blow with a 'darat' (agricultural implement having a C large cutting blade) on the back of the deceased's head - The blow proved to be fatal - Conviction of appellant uls.302 - Justification of - Held: Justified - Appellant chose the sharp side of the 'darat' and not the blunt side - The ferocity with which the blow was struck clearly emerges from the fact that D the blow resulted in cutting through the skull of the deceased and caused a hole therein, resulting in exposing the brain tissue - It is not the case of the appellant, that the occurrence arose out of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of the moment - It is not even his case, that he had retaliated as a E consequence of provocation at the hands of the deceased - Five witnesses stated in unison, that appellant was in the process of inflicting a second blow on the deceased, when they caught hold of him, whereupon one of them (PW6) snatched the 'darat' from the appellant, and threw it away - In F such a situation, it would be improper to treat I determine the culpability of the appellant by assuming, that he had inflicted only one injury on the deceased - Appellant must be deemed to have committed the offence of 'culpable homicide amounting to murder' u/s.302 IPC, as he had struck the 'darat' G blow, with the intention of causing such bodily injury, which he knew was so imminently dangerous, that it would in all probability cause the death of the deceased. The prosecution case was that while a 'bhandara' 433 H 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A (ceremonial feast) was being held at the residence of PW2, the accused-appellant started quarrelling with PW1's brother and then assaulted him with a 'daraf (a traditional agricultural implement) on the back portion of his head. The further case of the prosecution was that when B appellant was in the process of giving a second blow, PW-1 alongwith others caught hold of him and snatched the 'darat' from his hands. PW1 's brother died subsequently. Almost all the witnesses were related to the deceased, as also the appellant. A large number of c relatives collectively deposed against the appellant, whereas, only his brother (DW5) deposed in his favour. The trial court rejected the alternate version of the incident as stated by DW5 and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The conviction was affirmed by the High 0 Court and, therefore, the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On merits, there can hardly be any doubt about the fact, that the appellant inflicted the fatal blow E with a 'darat' on the back of the head of the deceased. The affirmation, that the aforesaid blow had been inflicted by the appellant emerges from the statements of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PWS. Alf the aforesaid witnesses were present at the place of occurrence. There is no F reason to doubt the veracity of their statements. The statement of DWS is insufficient to overturn the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is untrustworthy. [Para 6] [445-8-E, F] 2.1. It is apparent from the factual narration of the G witnesses produced by the prosecution, that the appellant was not carrying the 'darat' but had picked up the same from the house of PW2. A 'darat' is a traditional agricultural implement used for cutting branches of trees. It is also used by butchers for beheading goats and H sheep. A 'darat' has a handle and a large cutting blade. SOM RAJ @ SOMA v. STATE OF H.P. 435 Having picked up the 'darat' for committing an assault on A the deceased, it is apparent that the appellant was aware of the nature of injury he was likely to cause with the weapon of incident. From the statements of the two Doctors (PW4 and PW5), the nature of injuries caused to the deceased has been brought out. A perusal thereof B . leaves no room for doubt, that the appellant had chosen the sharp side of the 'darat' and not the blunt side. The ferocity with which the aforesaid blow was struck clearly emerges from the fact that the blow resulted in cutting through the skull of the deceased and caused a hole c therein, resulting in exposing the brain tissue. When a blow with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.