LexSUDERSHAN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
520 SUDERSHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF DELHI October 30, 1974 [K. K. MATHEW AND N. L. UNTWALlA, JJ.] Penal Codc-S. 300, Thirdly-Scope of When the deccastd declined to murry him the appellant who was her puram· our, thr~atened to kill her in a manner that she would have a lingering death. He carried out the threat by pouring acid over h,er when she was lying on a cot. The deceased who had sustained extensive acid burns over her body died a few days later. The trial court convicted him under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced hiD.1 to imprisonment for lifo. The High Court confirmed the conviction and senten.ce. On appeal it was contendt0d that the intention of the appellant was not. to kill the deceased but only to disfigure her and, therefore, the offence would fall under s. 304 part I or under s. 326 I.P.C. and that death was due to negligence. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : The appellant is guilty of offence punishable under s. 302 I.:P.C. [525B] A B c (1) To bring a case under cl. 3 of s. 300 the prosecution must establish : (i) D bodily injury (ii) the nature of the injury (iii) intention to inflict that parti•:ular bodily injury and (iv) that it is sutllcent to cause death in the ordinary cour:;e of nature. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution the offence is murder under s. 300 cl. 3 l.P.C.; it does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. [522E-H] In the present case it is established bi:yond doubt that the accused intimded E to cause injuries by throwing acid and the injuries were actually caused on the person of the deceased. . Vlrsa Singh v. The State. of Pu11;ab [1958] S.C.R. 1495, followed. (2) There is no substance in the argument thnt death was due to negligence. There is no evid~nce that the deceased died bocuuse she did not receive proper treatment. The appellant threatened the deceased that if she did not marry him she would have a lingering death. The act of the appellant in pouring acid on f the body wa~ a pre-planned one and intended to cause the injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. [525B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1971. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 31st March, 1970 of the Delhi High Omrt in Cri A. No. 38 of 1968. Bawa Gui·charm1 Singh and D. D. Sharma for the Appellant. Girish Chandra, for the respondent. The Jttdgme.nt of the Court was delivered by G MATHEW J. When the special leave to appeal was granted, this lJ Court limited it to the question 0f the nature of the offence commit- ted by the appellant (accused) in (~ausing the death of one Maya De•i by pouring acid on her body. A B c D E F G H s. KUMAR v. DELI-II (Mathew, J.) i21 The prosecution case was as follows. Maya Devi, aged 19' years at the ume of her death was the daughter of Raj Kumari (P.W. 1). Both the mother and daui:hter had taken to the prores- sion of dancing and smgmg and used to live in an apartment on G. B. Road, LJelhi. The accused had illicit connection with Maya Devi and he often used to go to the residence of the deceased. The accused wanted to marry Maya Devi but she declined as he was always married to another woman. A few days' before the occur- rence, the appellant took Maya Devi with him to his house and she stayed there for about 12 days. Thereafter Maya Devi was brought back by the accused to her mother's apartment. On that occasion also the· accused asked Maya Devi to marry him but she refused. The accused then threatened Maya Devi that if she would not marry him, she. should either leave Delhi or he would kill her ID such a manner that she would have a lingering death. On August 14, 1967, af about 6 A.M., Maya Devi was lying on her cot with her son aged about one month. Raj Kumari was lying on another cot in the same room. The accu'sed came to the room holding a jug containing acid and a bottle. The accused then poured the aci~ out of the jug on Maya Devi, her son and Raj Kumari. They start- ed crying and the accused threw the jug on the cot !fnd placed the bottle on the ground and ran away. Maya Devi was thereafter re- moved to the City Clinic, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, a private hospital at about 6.30 A.M. Raj Kumari and the son of Maya D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.