VINOD KUMAR versus AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 954 · Decided: 30-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
VINOD KUMAR
v.
AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 30, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.300 thirdly – Prosecution case was that
respondent 1 to 5-accused were guilty of killing victim-deceased –
Trial court convicted respondents-accused inter alia for offence
punishable u/ss.302/149 – High Court altered conviction u/s.302
to one u/s.304 Part II holding that the injuries caused to deceased
were on non-vital parts of the body and, therefore, there was no
intention on part of accused to kill the deceased – High Court
further observed that the accused took deceased to a doctor which
showed that there was no intention on their part to kill the deceased
– Appeal by informant (brother of victim) – Held: The factum of
bodily injuries and its nature was duly established – Apart from the
injuries on non-vital parts, there were fractured ribs on the right
side and the right lung was ruptured – Even the wind pipe and food
pipe were ruptured – There was an injury to liver – The cause of
death as certified by the medical board was excessive bleeding due
to injuries on vital parts like right lung as well as liver and the
resultant shock – Deposition of eye witness that one of the accused
held deceased who was lying flat on the ground and at least three
accused persons assaulted him – Therefore,  injuries on the chest
which resulted into fracture of five ribs and rupture of right lung
cannot be said to be accidental or unintentional – Therefore, even
the third element in s.300 was established –Once prosecution
established existence of three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly”
in s. 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the part
of the accused to cause death – Even the knowledge that an act of
that kind is likely to cause death is not necessary to attract “thirdly”
– Clause “thirdly” of s.300 applies in this case – High Court
committed gross error in applying s.304 Part II – Judgment of trial
court is restored.
954
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 954
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In this case, none of the exceptions to Section
300 are applicable. The issue which is required to be examined
is whether the case will be covered by “thirdly” in Section 300.
The case of Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab has stood the test
of time. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said decision: “...the
prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a
case under S. 300, “Thirdly”; first, it must establish, quite objectively,
that a bodily injury is present; secondly, the nature of the injury
must be proved; these are purely objective investigations; thirdly,
it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or
unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.”
[Para 16][964-B-F]
Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 4654
: [1958] SCR 1495 – relied on.
1.2 The first two elements laid down in paragraph 12 have
been established in this case as the factum of bodily injuries and
its nature have been duly established. The question is whether
the third element of intention to inflict the particular bodily injuries
was present. As narrated by PW2, he along with deceased were
forcibly taken in a vehicle. When the vehicle reached unmetalled
road, it was stopped. Thereafter, the accused banged the deceased
flat on the ground. While the accused no.1 was holding the
deceased, accused nos.4 and 5 started assaulting deceased. There
was no scope for the deceased to resist. Thereafter, the accused
started assaulting him. Apart from the injuries on non-vital parts,
there was a fracture of 6th to 10th ribs on the right side and the
right lung was ruptured. Even the wind pipe and food pipe were
ruptured. There was an injury to liver. The cause of death as
certified by the Board was excessive bleeding due to injuries on
vital parts like right lung as well as liver and the resultant shock.
Therefore, it is impossible to say that the injuries on the chest
which resulted into fracture of 5 ribs and rupture of right lung
were accidental or unintentional. Therefore, even the third
element was established. Once the prosecution establishes the
existence of the three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in
Section 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on
VINOD KUMAR v. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS.
A
B
C

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