Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a criminal appeal by special leave filed by the appellant against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder. The appeal arose from concurrent findings of the trial court and the Patna High Court that the appellant had caused the death of Ramlal Bhagat by a single lathi blow on the head. The special leave was confined to the question whether the offence committed by the appellant was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The occurrence took place on August 14, 1965, at about 11 a.m. in village Khahla, district Saran. A day earlier, Prasadi Dusadh and Ganesh Dusadh had killed a goat belonging to Baharan Bhagat, and on the advice of the deceased Ramlal Bhagat, Baharan lodged a police report. On the morning of the incident, Ramlal and his son Ramashish Prasad were returning from their paddy field when they were assaulted by persons who had been hiding on the route. The appellant gave a lathi blow on the head of Ramlal, causing him to fall down and die at the spot. The accused then set fire to one of their huts and fled. Post-mortem examination revealed a lacerated wound 2 inches by 1/2 inch bone deep on the left side of the head, a 3 inch long fracture of the left parietal bone, and large amounts of blood and blood clots on the left side of the brain. The doctor opined that death was due to compression on the left side of the brain and that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The core legal issue was whether the single deliberate lathi blow on the head fell within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constituting murder, or whether it amounted only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant contended, relying on Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, that because only one blow was given and there was no intention to cause death, the offence should be reduced. The State supported the conviction, emphasizing the premeditated nature of the assault and the medical evidence of sufficiency. The Court analysed clause thirdly of Section 300, which has two parts: first, the accused must have intended to inflict the particular injury found on the deceased; second, the intended bodily injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court observed that the injury was not accidental because the appellant aimed the blow on the head with a lathi, and there was no evidence of supervening cause or sudden movement. The medical evidence clearly established the second part. The Court distinguished Chamru Budhwa on the ground that it involved a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation, which was absent here. The Court held that the fact that only one blow was delivered would not mitigate the offence because the injury was sufficient to cause death and actually resulted in instantaneous death. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 300 Clause Thirdly of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Interpretation and Application of Clause Thirdly - Clause thirdly consists of two parts: intention to inflict the particular injury found on the deceased and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; court must first ascertain whether the injury was intended or accidental, then assess sufficiency through medical evidence - In this case, the assault was premeditated, appellant aimed a lathi blow on the head of the deceased, causing a lacerated wound and 3 inch fracture of the left parietal bone leading to brain compression and instant death; medical evidence established the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Held that both parts of clause thirdly were satisfied and the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC, not culpable homicide not amounting to murder; single blow did not mitigate the offence. B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Distinguishing Precedent - Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 652 distinguished on facts as that case involved a sudden fight in heat of passion without premeditation; the observation that a single fatal blow on the head did not show intention to cause death was made in the context of those facts and did not lay down a blanket proposition - In the present case, there was no exchange of abuses or sudden quarrel, the appellant and companions were lying in wait, and the assault was premeditated; therefore exception 4 did not apply - Held that the appellant's case fell within clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC and not within any exception.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the offence committed by the appellant was murder under Section 300 clause thirdly of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where a single lathi blow on the head caused death.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Law Points
- Culpable homicide is murder if done with intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
- Clause thirdly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code
- 1860 consists of two parts
- deliberate injury not accidental satisfies first part
- medical evidence about sufficiency of injury to cause death satisfies second part
- single blow on head with lathi can constitute murder if injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death
- premeditation and absence of sudden fight preclude exception 4
- Chamru Budhwa v. State of M.P. distinguished on facts
