Supreme Court Acquits Accused of Murder in Hammer Attack Case Due to Inconsistent Medical Evidence. Death Caused by Multiple Injuries, Not Solely by Appellant's Blow, Leading to Benefit of Doubt.

  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal of Karuppanna Gounder, who was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder. The case arose from a land dispute where the appellant and his co-accused attacked the deceased, Chinnappa Gounder, with weapons including a hammer (Sammatti) and sickle (Koduval). The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, which revealed two major head injuries: a laceration on the middle of the head and a compound fracture from frontal to parietal area. The appellant's alleged blow was to the back of the head or neck, but the injuries did not correspond to that location. The fatal injuries were likely caused by co-accused who were acquitted or convicted for lesser offences. Since the State did not appeal the acquittal of others, and the appellant was the only remaining accused, the Court could not apply Section 34 or 149 IPC. The Court gave the appellant the benefit of doubt for murder but convicted him under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons. As he had already served sufficient sentence, his sentence was modified to the period already undergone. The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant's bail bonds were discharged.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Cause of Death - Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Benefit of Doubt - Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing a blow with a hammer on the back of the head of the deceased - Medical evidence showed two major head injuries, one from frontal to parietal area, inconsistent with a single hammer blow - Co-accused who caused fatal injuries were acquitted or convicted for lesser offences - Held that death cannot be attributed solely to appellant's injury, benefit of doubt granted, conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, convicted under Section 324 IPC (Paras 9-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the injury caused by the appellant-A1 can be said to be the cause of death of the deceased.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 324 IPC. Sentence modified to period already undergone. Appellant on bail, bail bonds discharged.

Law Points

  • Benefit of doubt
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 324 IPC
  • Cause of death
  • Multiple injuries
  • Acquittal of co-accused
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Section 149 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (9) 51

Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 2010

2019-09-17

Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose

Mr. S. Nagamuthu (for appellant)

Karuppanna Gounder

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by trial court and High Court upheld conviction for murder.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC; High Court upheld conviction.

Issues

Whether the injury caused by the appellant-A1 can be said to be the cause of death of the deceased.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the injury caused by him was not the cause of death; medical evidence showed fatal injuries were caused by others.

Ratio Decidendi

When medical evidence shows that the fatal injuries were caused by co-accused who have been acquitted or convicted for lesser offences, and the appellant's alleged injury does not correspond to the fatal wounds, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt for murder but may be convicted for a lesser offence like voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons under Section 324 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The question is whether the death of the deceased could be attributed to the injury caused by the appellantA1. In view of the above, we give benefit of doubt to the appellant no.1, acquitting him of the offence of murder but convict him under Section 324, IPC.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC; High Court upheld conviction; Supreme Court partly allowed appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 324, 307, 34, 149
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 173
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused of Murder in Hammer Attack Case Due to Inconsistent Medical Evidence. Death Caused by Multiple Injuries, Not Solely by Appellant's Blow, Leading to Benefit of Doubt.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence and Long Custody. Acquittal under Section 302 IPC upheld as medical evidence did not corroborate ocular evidence of assault with sharp end of plough.