SUCHAND BOURI versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 09-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 796 
A 
SUCHAND BOURI 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 9, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 300 thirdly - Murder - Knife 
blow on chest of deceased, resulting in his death - Day before 
c incident accused-appellant threatened to behead deceased 
- Conviction under s.302 by courts below - Plea that case 
was covered by exception 4 to s.300 - Held: The four 
requisites of exception 4 to s.300 not existing- It is not a case 
of sudden fight nor the act was done in a heat of passion -
D Appellant had a pre-existing malice against deceased -
Appellant not entitled to benefit of exception 4 - Act squarely 
covered by s.300, thirdly - Conviction upheld. 
Prosecution case was tllat there was quarrel 
E between appellant and PW-11 in respect of boundary of 
land. Appellant blamed that the deceased was instigating 
PW-11 against him. Appellant threatened deceased that 
he would behead him and his !;on. The next day, when 
deceased was sitting with his brothers near his house, 
F 
appellant along with others <:ame there armed with 
deadly weapons and started assaulting the deceased's 
brother. Deceased intervened to rescue his brother. 
Appellant gave a knife blow on the chest of the deceased. 
Deceased died the next morning. Trial Court convicted 
appellant under s. 302 IPC and awarded rigorous 
G imprisonment for life. High Court affirmed the conviction. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the 
• 
offence committed by him would not come within the 
definition of "murder", but only "culpable homicide not 
H 
796 
SUCHAND BOURI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
797 
amounting to murder" under Section 304 IPC; that there A 
was no premeditation nor any intention to cause death; 
that deceased was given solitary knife-blow by the 
appellant when he intervened while his brother was being 
assaulted and the case was covered by Exception 4 to 
"' 
Section 300 and that the appellant cannot be said to have 8 
intention of causing such body injury upon deceased. 
Dismissed the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The determinative factor in Section 300 
'Thirdly' is the intentional injury which must be sufficient c 
to cause death in the ordinary way of nature. It is 
immaterial whether the offender had knowledge that an 
act of that kind will be likely to cause death. The 
offender's subjective knowledge of the consequences is 
~ 
irrelevant. The result of the intentionally caused injury D 
must be viewed objectively. To find out whether the 
offender had intention to cause such bodily injury which 
in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause 
death, the diverse factors need to be kept in mind such 
as: the force with which the blow has been dealt with, the E 
type of weapon used, the vital organ or the particular spot 
of the body targeted, the nature of the injury caused, the 
origin and genesis of the crime and the circumstances 
attendant upon the death. [Para 12] [804-F-H; 805-A-B] 
Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327; 
F 
Virsa Singh v. state of Punjab AIR (1958) SC 465; Jagup 
Singh v. State of Haryana AIR (1981) SC 1552 and 
Ramashraya and Anr. v. State of M.P. (2001) 3 SCC 439, 
referred to. 
G 
2. In the present case, the accused appellant had a 
strong feeling of annoyance \gainst deceased as he 
thought that deceased being a 'village chowkidar was 
helping PW-11with wholl'!Jhe accused had a boundary 
H 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A dispute. On a day preceding the incident, the accused 
had threatened to behead deceased and his son. The 
accused went armed with a deadly weapon like knife to 
the place of occurrence where deceased, his brothers 
and other family members were sitting and inflicted blow 
s by that weapon on the chest of deceased. The injury that 
deceased suffered clearly shows that knife was used by 
the accused with a considerable force and injury was 
caused on a vital part of the body .. It is true that the injury 
was inflicted on deceased when he intervened while his 
c brother was being assaulted but the force with which 
deceased was stabbed by knife, the intention of causing 
such bodily injury is obvious. The said injury was 
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 
The stab injury inflicted on the chest of deceased by the 
0 accused was surely not accidental or unintentional. The 
act of the accused is squarely covered by Section 300 
'Thirdly'. [Para 13

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