TULARAM versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 671 · Decided: 02-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
671
TULARAM
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 663 of 2018)
 MAY 02, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – Exception 4 to s.300 and s.304 Part II –
Quarrel between ‘Rh’ and ‘Ru’ escalated into altercation and soon
they were joined by some other persons – Altercation subsequently
turned violent and appellant, uncle of ‘Ru’, pierced brother of ‘Rh’
with ballam (spear) on left side of his chest and also  injured ‘Rh’ –
Brother of ‘Rh’ was taken home where he was declared dead –
Whether appellant had the intention of causing the death of brother
of ‘Rh’ – Held: No – Facts of the instant case indicate that all the
ingredients of Exception 4 to s.300 IPC were present – The fight
was sudden and not premeditated (a finding of both the Courts
below) and appellant was not found to have taken undue advantage
of his carrying a ballam (spear) in the sense of inflicting any other
serious injury, except a contusion to ‘Rh’ – That being the position,
it cannot be held that appellant had the intention to murder brother
of ‘Rh’ or to cause him such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
– None of the witnesses have given any indication that appellant
had intention to cause the death of brother of ‘Rh’ – During the
altercation appellant did pierce the chest of brother of ‘Rh’ but the
intention to kill him is not apparent – However, appellant must be
attributed with the knowledge that piercing the left side of the chest
with a ballam (spear) would result in a bodily injury that is likely to
cause death – Under the circumstances, the conviction of
appellant 
u/s. 
302 
set 
aside 
– 
Instead, 
appellant
convicted u/s.304 Part II – Appellant has been behind bars for
almost 14 years – His sentence altered to the period of incarceration
he has already undergone and ordered to be released forthwith –
Sentence/ Sentencing.
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 671
  671
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The facts of the present case indicate that all the
ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC are present.
The fight was sudden and not premeditated (this is the finding of
both the courts) and appellant is not found to have taken undue
advantage of his carrying a ballam (spear) in the sense of inflicting
any other serious injury, except a contusion to ‘Rh’.  That being
the position, it cannot be held that appellant had the intention to
murder brother of ‘Rh’ (BL) or to cause him such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death. Section 304 of the IPC provides the
punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.  Part
I of this Section provides that if the act by which death is caused
is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death then the punishment may extend
upto imprisonment for life.  On the other hand, Part II of Section
304 IPC provides that if the offending act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention
to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death then the punishment may extend to imprisonment for 10
years. [Paras 11, 12] [675-F-H; 676-A-B]
2. The intention to cause death must not be readily inferred.
Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court have, on the basis
of the mere fact that appellant pierced the chest of ‘BL’ with a
ballam (spear) , assumed that he intended to cause the death of
‘BL’.  There is nothing on the record to suggest such an intention
and none of the witnesses have given any indication of appellant’s
intention to cause the death of ‘BL’.  It is quite clear that during
the altercation, appellant did pierce the chest of ‘BL’ but the
intention to kill him is not apparent.  However, appellant must be
attributed with the knowledge that piercing the left side of the
chest with a spear would result in a bodily injury that is likely to
cause death. [Para 13] [676-C-D]
3. In view of the evidence on record, the ingredients of
murder as explained in Section 300 of the IPC are missing in this
case. The intention of appellant was to cause bodily injury to ‘BL’
and piercing the chest of ‘BL’ with a spear was such an injury
that could possibly cause his death. This knowledge must be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
673
attributed to appellant.  Under the circumstances, the conviction
of appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC is set aside but he is convicted of an offence p

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