STATE OF KERALA versus SASI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 31-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
SAS! 
OCTOBER 31, 1996 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302, 326-Murder bycausinggrievous injuries-Trial Court 
C convicting the accused/or murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment-
High Court convicting the accused only for causing grievous injuries and 
sentencing him to 5 years RI-On appeal by State held, in view of the 
medical opinion that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of 
nature to cause death which is directly attributable to the injuries, respondent 
is guilty of an offense punishable under S.302-Hence the trial court 
D judgment restored-Respondent to undergo imprisonment for life. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
397 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.95 of the Kerala High Court 
E in Crl.A. No. 123 of I 992. 
F 
M.T. George for the Appellant. 
V.B. Saharya for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
On 2.1 l.1990 at about 4.15 p.m., the respondent gave blows to the 
deceased Kunhuvareed on his head with a bamboo stick. Those blows 
G resulted in fracture of the skull and multiple lacerated wounds on the head 
with resultant damage to the brain. The deceased died in the hospital on 
13.I I.1990 at about 3.25 a.m. Case was registered and investigation taken 
in hand. After completion of the investigation, the respondent was 
committed to stand trial to the Court of Sessions for an offence under 
Section 302 !PC. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses including PWs 
H I 5, I 6 & I 7-the three medical witnesses, and Pws. I, 2 and 3 as the eye-
304 
STATE OF KERALA v. SAS! 
305 
witnesses. At the trial, however, PW! and PW2 turned hostile, after A 
admitting the occurrence to have taken place on the date and at the time 
alleged by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court, after appreciation of 
evidence and considering the defence documents and the statement of the 
respondent, found the respondent guilty of an offence under Section 302 
!PC and convicted him accordingly. He was sentenced to undergo 
impisonment for life vide judgment dated 15.11.1991. The respondent's B 
appeal to the High Court partly succeeded and while accepting the genesis 
of the prosecution case, the High Court altered the conviction from under 
Section 302 !PC to the one under Section 326 JPC and sentenced the 
respondent to undergo five years RI vide judgment dated 6.4.1995. The 
State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for an 
offence under Section 302 JPC by special leave. 
C 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
The respondent has not questioned his conviction. He has not filed 
any S.L.P. A perusal of the evidence on the record clearly establishes that 
the occurrence took place in the manner suggested by the prosecution and D 
that on 2.11.1990 at about 4.15. p.m. at the Toddy shop in the village, the 
respondent gave blows to the deceased on his head with the bamboo stick. 
The evidence also reveals that the deceased was removed ·to the hospital in 
seriously injured condition and he remained in coma till he breathed his 
last on 13.11.1990. The prosecution has, thus, successfully established E 
that it was the respondent who had caused injuries at the head of the 
deceased on the fateful night. The only question, however, is about the 
nature of offence. 
The trial court while dealing with the nature of offence observed: 
"The next question to be considered is as to what is the offence 
committed by the accused. If a man deliberately strikes 
another on the head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod 
or even a lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull he must, 
F 
in the absence of any circumstance negativing the G 
presumption be deemed to have intended to cause the death 
of the victim of such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause 
death. Since the accused gave 3 blows by using MO l on the 
head of deceased Kunhuvareed as a result of which the 
deceased fell down on sustaining fatal injuries on the head 
and the circumstances indicate that the assault was H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
306 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
premeditated and the three blows on the head <'f deceased 
were not accidental and the injuries were sufficient in the 
ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case would 
squarely fall within the ambit of clause thirdly of Section 
300 !PC and the accused is guilty of the offence of murder 
punishable under Sect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.