STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus LEELA RAM @ LEELA DHAR

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 13-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
621
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
LEELA RAM @ LEELA DHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of  2013)
DECEMBER 13, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.304 Part II – Conviction of respondent
under s.302 IPC – High Court modified his conviction to one under
s.304 Part II – Prosecution case was that three persons including
the respondent attacked the victim-deceased and caused serious
injuries to him – Respondent inflicted an axe injury on the skull of
the deceased which caused his death – Accused persons were tried
for murder – Trial court  convicted the respondent on the basis of
depositions of PW-1 to PW-4, the medical evidence and recovery of
blood stained axe at the behest of respondent, while acquitted the
other two persons – High Court allowed the appeal of respondent
in part and convicted him of an offence under s.304 Part II – State’s
appeal – Held:  Evidence of prosecution witnesses was to the effect
that the respondent was the author of the injury and wielded the
axe, as a result of which death was the immediate and natural
cause – PW-4 was an injured eye-witness and, therefore, his
presence was established beyond all reasonable doubt – The injury
which was caused to the deceased was [within the meaning of s.300
(fourthly)] of a nature that the person committing the act knew that
it was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – In such
circumstances, the judgment of High Court was manifestly perverse
and totally contrary to the evidence on the record – Conviction of
respondent by trial court under s.302 is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  PW-2, who is the complainant, has deposed to
the genesis of the incident.  According to him, the deceased was
seized upon by the respondent (together with the two co-accused).
The respondent, inflicted an axe blow on the skull of the deceased.
The evidence of PW-2 on the involvement of the respondent found
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 621
621
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
abundant corroboration in the deposition of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3
and PW-4.  PW-4 was an injured eye-witness. His presence was
thus established in any event beyond all reasonable doubt. From
the evidence of these witnesses coupled with the medical
evidence, it emerged that the respondent inflicted an axe blow in
the centre of the skull of the deceased.  The evidence of PW-5
was clear in indicating that the injury was caused with the help of
a sharp edged weapon.  PW-5 also stated that the cranium and
spinal cord and the parietal bone was fractured. The injury on the
skull, led to coma and was the cause of death.  Coupled with
these circumstances was the recovery of the weapon of offence
which was found to be blood stained. [Para 11] [626-G-H;
627-A-B]
2. The High Court proceeded entirely on the basis of
surmise in opining that the death was caused without pre-
meditation and on the spur of the moment.  In arriving at that
inference, the High Court has evidently ignored the evidence,
bearing upon the nature of the incident, the consistent account
that it was the respondent who had inflicted the blow, the weapon
of offence and the vital part of the body on which the injury was
inflicted. The fact that the co-accused were acquitted by the Trial
Court, was no reason to doubt the testimony of all the eye-
witnesses which implicated the respondent. The death was
attributable to the assault by the respondent on the deceased,
during the course of the incident. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is evident that the injury which was
caused to the deceased was [within the meaning of Section 300
(Fourthly)] of a nature that the person committing the act knew
that it was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.  Under
Exception 4, culpable homicide is not murder if the stipulations
contained in that provision are fulfilled. They are: (i) that the act
was committed without pre-meditation; (ii) that there was a
sudden fight; (iii) the act must be in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel; and (iv) the offender should not have taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.  The deceased
was unarmed when he was seized upon and assaulted by the
respondent.  In these circumstances, the judgment of the High
Court was manifestly perverse and was totally contrary to

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