Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on February 28, 2012, the appellants, who were cousins of the deceased Vrindawan, attacked him with axes while he was getting his land levelled, causing head injuries. Vrindawan was hospitalized, operated upon, but died on March 22, 2012. The police registered a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on an FIR by the deceased's daughter. After trial, the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, which the High Court affirmed. The core legal issues were whether the appellants were guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or liable under Section 304 IPC, and whether the prosecution evidence, particularly from related witnesses, was credible. The appellants argued that the evidence should be discarded due to witness relationships and contradictions, that the incident was sudden without premeditation, and that death occurred 20 days later due to surgical complications, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. They also contended that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applied due to prior disputes. The state argued that the concurrent findings were sound, eyewitness testimonies were credible and corroborated, and medical evidence linked death directly to injuries. The court analyzed the credibility of related witnesses, holding that their testimony is not per se excluded and found PW1 to PW5 reliable, with corroboration. It distinguished between Section 302 and Section 304 IPC, referencing Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, and concluded that the appellants' attack with axes causing serious injuries leading to death constituted murder under Section 302 IPC. The court rejected the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, noting the attack was unprovoked and cruel. It also held that the survival period did not negate murder as death was directly linked to injuries. The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Credibility of Related Witnesses - The Supreme Court held that the testimony of witnesses related to the deceased is not per se excluded and can be relied upon if found credible and corroborated. The court found the eyewitness accounts of PW1 to PW5 reliable, with PW1's testimony corroborated by others, and no explanation for false deposition or her injuries. (Paras 14-15) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC vs. Section 304 IPC - Distinction and Application - The court analyzed the distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, referencing Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab. It held that the appellants' attack with axes causing serious head injuries, leading to death after 20 days due to cardio-respiratory failure from injuries, constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, not a lesser offence under Section 304 Part I or II. (Paras 15-16) C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Proof and Inference - The court upheld the finding of common intention under Section 34 IPC, based on the appellants acting together in an unprovoked attack with axes, sharing the common object to assault the deceased. The evidence established their joint liability for the offence. (Paras 14-15) D) Criminal Law - Exceptions to Murder - Section 300 IPC - Grave and Sudden Provocation - The court rejected the argument that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applied, holding that the appellants' attack was unprovoked, cruel, and they took undue advantage by being armed, inflicting serious injuries on an unarmed deceased. The prior dispute did not constitute grave and sudden provocation. (Paras 12-13) E) Criminal Law - Medical Evidence - Causation of Death - Link to Injuries - The court held that the death occurring 20 days after the incident due to cardio-respiratory failure from multiple injuries, as per post-mortem report, did not negate murder under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution proved the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and survival period is irrelevant if death is directly linked to injuries. (Paras 6-7, 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC or liable under Section 304 IPC, and whether the prosecution evidence is credible
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment
Law Points
- Credibility of related witnesses not per se excluded
- distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC
- common intention under Section 34 IPC
- exceptions to Section 300 IPC not attracted if attack is unprovoked and cruel
- survival period after injury does not negate murder if death is directly linked to injuries
