STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAM PRASAD

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 04-12-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF MADRY A PRADESH 
v. 
RAM PRASAD 
December 4, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH; S. M. S!KR! AND K. S. liEODE, 11.J 
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). s. 300 (Fourthly)-Scope of. 
Practice-Acquittal by Hi11h Court of accused of major offence alld 
convic1ion for lesser offence-Appeal against acqui'ttal to Supreme Courl-
Right of accused to prove that he was not guilty of c1ry offence. 
B· 
The accused poured kerosene upon bis mistress and set her clothes en 
fire. 
There were extensive bums and she died as a result thereof. 
On the 
C 
question as t.o the nature of the offence. 
HELD : The accused must have kno"'1 that he was committing an 
act so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or 
such injury ac; v.·as likely .to cause death. 
As he had no excuse for incur-
ring that risk the offence falls under s. 300 (fourthly) of the Indian Penal 
Code. that is culpable homicide amounting 10 murder, even if the accused 
did not intend to C-'use her death. [527 D-E) 
D 
Although the clause is usually invoked in those cases where there is 
no intention to cause the death of any particular person, it may, on its 
terms, be us~ in those cases v.·hcrc there is such callousness towards the 
res.ult an<l the risk taken is such that it may be stated that the person 
knew that the act v.·as likely to cau'ie death or such bodily injury :is was 
likely to cau•o death. [527 CJ 
Even though there is no provision to that effect in the Rules of t.he 
Supreme Cl)Urt, _in the case of an appeal by the State against acquittal foe 
the major offence, it is safer, fair and just to 1he accused to r;·,f! him a 
chance h> prove that he v:as not guilty even of the lesser offence on the 
;1nalogy of s. 4>9(6) of che Criminal Proeedurc Code. [524 Fl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
92 o[ 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 20, I 964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Cr;minal 
Appeal No. 67 of 1964. 
I. N. Shroff and M. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullab, J. 
The respondent Ramprasad against whom 
the State of Madhya Pr~desh has filed this appeal by special leave 
was tried in the Court of Session under s. 302 of the Indian Penal 
Code. 
He was convicted by the Sessions Judge under s. 324 of 
the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 
The State Government thcr> filed an appeal against his acquittal 
under s. 302, Indian Pena[ Code and also an application for 
52:! 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MADHYA PRADESH V, RAM PRASAD (HidayatuJ/ah, /.) 
523 
revision for the enhancement of the sentence passed on him. The 
High Court convicted him under s. 304 Part II and senten~ed 
him to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment; concurrently the applica-
tion for revision was dismissed as infructuous. 
The State Gov-
ernment has now filed this appeal an<j contends that the con-
viction of the respondent should have been under s. 3~2 <;>f the 
Indian Penal Code and that there has been failure of 1ust1ce in 
the case requiring interference from this Court. 
The facts of the case are as follows : Ram Prasad was Jiving 
with his mistress Mst. Rajji at Mallllaur in District Panna. Evi-
dence shows that they were having quarrels for some time pre-
vious to the incident which took place on May 24, 1963. On 
that date, Ram Prasad intended leaving Mannaur for a place 
called Harsa, because his cattle used to be stolen -at M~nnaur. 
Mst. Rajji was unwilling to go with him unless he first reported 
the matter to the police station house before taking her to Harsa; 
alternatively, she wanted that he should leave her at Mannaur and 
give her some cattle for her maintenance. To either course Ram 
Prasad was unwilling. 
Matters came to a head on the night of 
the 24th when Ram Prasad ordered a van in whic.h he began 
putting his luggage with a view to leaving for Harsa. Mst. Rajji 
then went to some of the village panchas and brought them over 
for intercession. It is these panchas who have now appeared as 
witnesses to the incident that took place immediately afterwards. 
To all the panchas Mst. Rajji again narrated the story of her 
grievance and Ram Prasad insisted on taking her away. 
As 
Ram Prasad would not give in, nor would Rajji, the panchas 
could do nothing further and some of them went away to their 
lodgings which were close to the residence of Ram Prasad. Evi-
dence then sh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.