Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in IPC Murder Case — Conviction Modified to Culpable Homicide. The court found that while the injuries were caused by bricks, the intention to kill was not established under Section 302 IPC.

In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This case involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant Naimuddin under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Munshi Basiruddin. The incident occurred on 27.2.1983, when the informant Abdul Razzak reported that his cousin had entered into a land sale agreement without his consent, leading to a dispute. During a confrontation over the land, bricks were thrown by the accused, resulting in the instantaneous death of the victim. The Sessions Court convicted Naimuddin and another accused, Muslim Mian, while acquitting six others. The High Court upheld the conviction. The prosecution presented 14 witnesses, and the medical examination confirmed that the injuries were consistent with being caused by bricks. The appellant's counsel argued that the distance from which the bricks were thrown negated the intention to kill. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that while the conviction under section 302 IPC could not be sustained, the appellant could be convicted under section 304 Part-II IPC due to the knowledge of the likelihood of death. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, modifying the conviction and sentencing the appellant to five years imprisonment.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Intention and Knowledge - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - The court found that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by bricks thrown by the accused, but the intention to kill could not be established. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC for culpable homicide due to the knowledge of the likelihood of death (Paras 19-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the bricks and whether the appellant had the intention or knowledge to commit murder.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was partly allowed, the conviction under sections 302/149 IPC was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under sections 304 Part-II/149 IPC and sentenced to five years imprisonment.

Law Points

  • Sections 302
  • 304 IPC
  • intention to kill
  • knowledge to commit murder
  • culpable homicide
  • conviction under IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (11) 38

Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2002

2009-11-06

Dalveer Bhandari, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma

S.B. Sanyal

Naimuddin

State of West Bengal

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to overturn conviction under IPC.

Filing Reason

Conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

Previous Decisions

Conviction upheld by the High Court.

Issues

Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the bricks Whether the appellant had the intention or knowledge to commit murder

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant was unarmed and threw bricks from a distance, negating intention to kill. Conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC is not sustainable as knowledge to commit murder cannot be attributed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the injuries were caused by bricks, the intention to kill was not established under Section 302 IPC, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead.

Judgment Excerpts

The conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained under sections 302/149 IPC. The ends of justice would be met if the conviction of the appellant under sections 302/149 IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted under sections 304 Part-II/149 IPC.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court, which was upheld by the High Court. The appeal was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the conviction.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 302, 304, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Tenant to Deposit Rent Pending Appeal Despite Eviction Decree — Appeal is Continuation of Suit, Rent Deposit Order Continues. Nomenclature of 'Rent' Not Decisive; Court Can Direct Deposit of Compensation Under Section 12 of...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Decision on Judgment Validity Due to Procedural Irregularity. The Trial Judge's failure to complete the judgment rendered it invalid, necessitating a fresh hearing as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.