Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kadhiravan, was convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, for an offence under Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The case arose from an incident on 03.11.2013, where the appellant allegedly slapped the deceased, Krishnan, on his left cheek following a quarrel over a loan of Rs.500/-. The deceased fell down, and the appellant allegedly pulled his hair and attacked him on the back of his neck. The deceased was taken to hospital and later died on 10.11.2013. The prosecution initially registered a case under Section 307 IPC, which was later altered to Section 302 IPC after the death, but the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 335 IPC. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical experts. The court noted that the prosecution's case was based on the testimony of PW1, the wife of the deceased, and PW2, the tea shop owner. However, their statements were inconsistent and did not inspire confidence. The medical evidence showed that the deceased died due to complications of head injury, but the doctor admitted that the injury could have been caused by a fall. The court held that a single slap, even if it caused the deceased to fall, did not indicate an intention to cause death. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. The court also noted that the appellant had been in custody for a period and that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder - Section 335 IPC - Intention to cause death - The appellant slapped the deceased on the cheek, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. The court held that a single slap, even if resulting in death, does not indicate an intention to cause death. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had the requisite knowledge that death was likely. The conviction under Section 335 IPC was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 10-22) B) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Cause of Death - The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was due to complications of head injury. However, the doctor admitted that the injury could be caused by a fall and not necessarily by a direct blow. The court held that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove that the appellant's act was the direct cause of death. (Paras 15-18) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Benefit of Doubt - The court held that when there are inconsistencies in the prosecution case and the evidence does not inspire confidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appellant was acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 20-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 335 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.149 of 2015 dated 14.12.2021 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.
Law Points
- Section 335 IPC requires both grievous hurt and knowledge that death may be caused but without intention to cause death
- Single slap causing fall does not constitute intention to cause death
- Medical evidence must establish cause of death and nature of injury
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
