STATE OF U.P. versus JAI DUTT AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 19-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 215
215
STATE OF U.P.
v.
JAI DUTT AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2022)
JANUARY 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 326 – Murder – Conviction
by trial court u/s.302 accepting the prosecution case that the accused
persons armed with deadly weapons went to the agricultural field
were the victim (complainant’s father) was working and beat him,
resulting in his death – High Court converted the conviction to that
u/s.326, primarily on grounds that the victim died six days after the
incident and no fracture was found on his head – Justification –
Held: Not justified – Merely because the victim died six days after
the incident not a ground to set aside the conviction u/s.302 and
convert it u/s.326 – Also, merely because no fracture was noticed
and/or found cannot take the case out of s.302 when the victim
died due to head injury – Causing injury on the head can be said
to be causing injury on the vital part of the body and therefore a
clear case of s.302 is established and proved – Conviction by trial
court, of first respondent u/s.302 and of second respondent u/s.302
r/w s.34, accordingly, restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. Merely because the deceased died after six
days could not have been the ground to set aside the conviction
for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to convert it to Section
326 IPC. The deceased was first taken to the PHC, however his
condition was found to be serious and therefore, he was taken to
the Lucknow Hospital on 20.12.1983 and thereafter while under
treatment he died on 26.12.1983 and the main cause of death is
found to be the head injury no.1. Though the High Court has
noticed the nine injuries as noticed by the Medical Officer at
PHC, the High Court has not at all noticed and/or considered at
all the antemortem injuries on the dead body mentioned in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
post-mortem report. As per the medical evidence the cause of
death was due to head injury no.1. The weapon was used on the
head - vital part of the body and ultimately the same proved to be
fatal and the deceased died due to head injury no.1. Therefore,
by no stretch of imagination the case would fall under Section
326 IPC. [Para 7.1][220-G-H; 221-A-B]
1.2. One another reason given by the High Court to convert
the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC is that
no fracture on the head was found. However, it is required to be
noted that the deceased died because of the internal injuries. As
per the deposition of PW8, who conducted the post-mortem, on
opening of the brain menages, he found brain congested, subdural
hematoma over both temporal lobes. Therefore, merely because
no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of
Section 302 IPC when the deceased died due to head injury no.1.
Causing injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on
the vital part of the body and therefore a clear case of Section
302 IPC has been established and proved. Therefore, the trial
Court rightly convicted the accused for the offences under Section
302 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC respectively. [Para 7.2]
[221-C-E]
1.3. Even otherwise considering Section 326 IPC, one fails
to appreciate how the case would fall under Section 326 IPC when
the deceased actually died due to grievous hurt and the injuries
were on the vital part of the body – head. [Para 7.3][221-E-F]
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court acquitting the accused- respondents for the offence under
Section 302 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC respectively and
convicting them for the offence under Section 326 IPC is hereby
quashed and set aside. The judgment and order of the trial Court
convicting the first respondent for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC and convicting the second respondent for
the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC is hereby
restored. The respondents- accused are sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with the fine as imposed by the trial Court.
[Para 8][222-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
217
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 37 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Appeal No.870 of 1987.
Rana Mukherjee, Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advs., Ankit Goel, Mrs.
Naghma Imtiaz, Ahmed Zargham, Saif Naseem, Ms. Lubna Naaz, Ms.
Sommya Chaturvedi for M/s Equity Lex Associates, Advs. for the
appearing parties

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