THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KANHAIYA LAL

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 10-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
569
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
KANHAIYA LAL
(Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 2019)
APRIL 10, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 304 Part I – Murder – Victim
attacked by accused on his head by an axe, succumbed to his
injuries – Conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence
punishable u/s. 302 by the trial court, however, altered by the High
Court to s. 304 Part I on the ground that the victim died of a single
injury caused on his head by the accused by an axe; that there was
no repeated injury; and that the victim and the accused had an
altercation and there was no intention for the accused – Interference
with – Held: Reasoning given by the High Court while converting
the conviction from s. 302 to s. 304 Part I, manifestly perverse and
totally contrary to the evidence on record – Doctor who conducted
post mortem stated that the said head injury was sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature – Single blow on the vital
part of the body like head and that too by deadly weapon-axe and
used with force proved to be fatal, and was sufficient to hold that it
was a case of murder u/s. 300 – Merely because the altercation
might have taken place much earlier and not immediately prior to
and/or at the time of commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred
that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause
death of the deceased – Thus, the High Court committed erred in
altering the conviction from s. 302 to s. 304 Part I – Judgment of
the High Court set aside and that of the trial court restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The main reason given by the High Court while
converting the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section
304 Part I of the IPC is that it was a case of a single blow, the
deceased had died because of single injury caused on his head by
the accused by an axe. The said can hardly be a ground to convert
the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 569
569
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the said decisions to
the facts of the case on hand and the reasoning given by the High
Court while converting the conviction from section 302 to Section
304 Part I, the reasons stated in the impugned Judgment and
Order, the judgment of the High Court is manifestly perverse
and is totally contrary to the evidence on record. As per PW15, a
fracture of 4 cm length was found in the parietal and occipital. He
also stated that the said head injury was sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the accused used a deadly
weapon-axe on the vital part of the body-head, which proved to
be fatal.  [Para 6.2, 7] [575-E; 576-G-H; 577-B-C]
Arun Raj v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 457 : [2010]
7 SCR 1; Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar v. State of
Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 604 ; State of Rajasthan v. Leela
Ram alias Leela Dhar 2019 (1) SCALE 544 – relied
on.
Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra
(2012) 11 SCC 592 – referred to.
1.2 Another reason given by the High Court is that there
was no repeated injury, can hardly be a ground to convert the
conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part I IPC. A single
blow on the vital part of the body like head and that too by deadly
weapon-axe and used with force which proved to be fatal, was
sufficient to hold that it was a case of murder within the definition
of Section 300 IPC. [Para 8][577-C-D]
1.3 Another reason given by the High Court is that in the
morning on the day of the incident, there was an altercation
between the accused and the deceased and so it can be said that
in the circumstances of the case there was no intention to cause
death on the part of the accused but the fact by which the death
was caused appears to hold down that the intention of causing
such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The said is contrary
to the evidence on record. It is not a case on behalf of the accused
that there was an altercation between the accused and the
deceased at the time of commission of the offence. The altercation,
if any, had taken place, in the morning and much earlier than the
time of incident. Merely because the altercation might have taken
place much earlier and not immediately prior to and/or at the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
time of commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred that there
was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the
dece

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