Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 299, 300, 302, 304 Part II — Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Application of Clause (3) of Section 300 — Repeated lathi blows on vital part (head) causing bone-deep lacerations, skull fracture and brain damage — Held, intention to inflict bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death established — Case falls within Section 300 Thirdly — Conviction under Section 302 IPC restored. (Paras 53, 56–63, 70)
The Court reiterated the structured approach for determining whether an offence amounts to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Upon proof that death was homicidal and attributable to acts of the accused, the decisive inquiry was whether the case fell within any clause of Section 300 IPC. The deceased sustained 29 injuries, including multiple bone-deep lacerated wounds on the parietal and temporal regions with skull fracture and intracranial haemorrhage. The multiplicity, situs and severity of injuries on a vital part, inflicted by members of an unlawful assembly lying in wait, demonstrated intention to inflict the very injury found to be present, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The High Court erred in treating the fatal injury as solitary and in downgrading the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: Where members of an unlawful assembly deliberately inflict repeated bone-deep injuries on the head, resulting in skull fracture and brain damage, the case squarely falls within Section 300 Thirdly IPC, irrespective of absence of explicit intention to kill.
Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Unlawful assembly — Vicarious liability — Identity of person inflicting fatal injury immaterial — Once common object to commit murder established, every member liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. (Paras 43, 65–67, 69)
The existence of an unlawful assembly and participation of the accused stood concluded. The High Court’s reasoning that since the prosecution failed to establish which accused caused the fatal injury, conviction under Section 302/149 IPC was unsafe, was held legally unsustainable. Section 149 IPC embodies the principle of constructive liability. Once it is shown that the offence was committed in prosecution of the common object, individual attribution of the fatal blow becomes irrelevant.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases attracting Section 149 IPC, proof of the common object and participation in the unlawful assembly is sufficient to fasten liability for murder; specific attribution of the fatal injury is not necessary.
Evidence — Post-mortem report admitted by defence — Non-examination of doctor — Evidentiary value — Held, where genuineness of post-mortem report is admitted under Section 294 CrPC, the report constitutes substantive evidence and absence of oral testimony of medical officer does not weaken prosecution case. (Paras 52, 63–64)
The defence admitted the post-mortem report (Exh.P/8), and consequently the doctor was not examined. The Court held that once genuineness is admitted, the contents stand proved and may be relied upon substantively. There was no suggestion of any intervening cause of death. The medical findings were corroborated by ocular evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Admission of post-mortem report under Section 294 CrPC dispenses with formal proof; non-examination of the medical officer does not create infirmity where the report stands admitted and corroborated.
Penal Law — Intention — Determination from surrounding circumstances — Premeditation — Road blockade, prior motive, concerted assault with lathis — No sudden provocation — No exception to Section 300 attracted. (Paras 58–60, 62)
The accused lay in wait after deliberately blocking the road by placing tube-well pipes, armed with lathis. The deceased had earlier intervened in a dispute involving the accused, furnishing motive. The assault was retaliatory and pre-planned, not the result of a sudden quarrel. Repeated blows were directed at the head. No Exception to Section 300 IPC was attracted.
Ratio Decidendi: Premeditated obstruction of victim’s passage followed by a coordinated assault with repeated blows on a vital part establishes requisite intention under Section 300 Thirdly IPC and rules out application of Exceptions.
Appellate Interference — High Court downgrading conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part II/149 IPC — Perverse appreciation of medical evidence — Held, finding that only one injury caused death contrary to record — Conviction and life sentence restored. (Paras 61, 68–71)
The High Court’s conclusion that death resulted from a solitary injury and not cumulative assault was found contrary to medical evidence indicating multiple bone-deep head injuries. Its approach was self-contradictory in affirming unlawful assembly while negating liability under Section 302/149 IPC. The Supreme Court restored the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi: Appellate alteration of conviction from murder to culpable homicide is impermissible where medical and ocular evidence clearly establish injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and common object under Section 149 IPC stands proved.
Result: Appeals allowed. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment restored. Accused directed to surrender within eight weeks. (Paras 71–72)**
