Lathi Is Lethal When Used On Vital Parts: Supreme Court Restores Murder Conviction
Unlawful assembly, common intention, 29 injuries and blows on head sufficient for murder
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has restored the conviction of several accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC in a case involving a coordinated lathi assault that resulted in death. The Court held that a lathi cannot be treated as harmless merely because it is not a conventional deadly weapon, particularly when it is repeatedly used on a vital part of the body.
The post-mortem revealed 29 injuries on the body of the deceased, including multiple lacerated wounds on the head, and the death was attributed to coma resulting from the head injury. Several other injured eyewitnesses also sustained injuries in the same occurrence, bringing the total number of injuries inflicted in the incident to 63. The post-mortem report was admitted by the defence at trial, and the genuineness of its contents was not disputed.
The Court noted that the assault was neither sudden nor accidental, as the deliberate obstruction of the road, the prior animosity, and the coordinated nature of the attack demonstrated preparation and common object. Though the weapons used were lathis, the Court observed that their lethality depends on the manner of use. Repeated blows delivered on the parietal and temporal regions of the head, resulting in bone-deep injuries and fracture of the skull, clearly established an intention to inflict bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The High Court’s observation that only one scalp injury was fatal was held to be contrary to the medical evidence, which showed multiple serious head injuries, the bench noted.
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta while setting aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, reinstated the life sentence imposed by the Trial Court. “Even though the weapons of offence were lathis, which in the abstract may not always be characterised as a deadly weapon, their lethality depends upon the manner of use, the part of the body targeted, and the force employed. The present case is not one of a solitary blow delivered in the heat of the moment. The accused-respondents, acting in concert 43 and in furtherance of their common object, inflicted as many as 63 injuries in total, of which 29 injuries were sustained by the deceased-Bhaggu alone, as reflected in the post-mortem report (Exh.P/8)”, the Bench noted.
“When repeated blows are inflicted on the parietal and temporal regions with lathis, resulting in bone-deep lacerations causing fractures and brain 44 damage and culminating in coma, it cannot be said that the assailants lacked the intention to inflict such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The nature, location, and magnitude of the injuries leave little scope for treating the death to be the result of a solitary blow”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate Mrinal Gopal Elker appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sarad Kumar Singhania appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, in an incident on 11-07-2003 in which the deceased, Bhaggu @ Bhag Chand, was returning from Bhatera Ghat when the road was deliberately obstructed by pipes placed across it.
The prosecution case, which found favour with the Trial Court, was that the accused, forming an unlawful assembly and armed with lathis, lay in wait and launched a concerted attack after stopping the vehicle in which the deceased and other victims were travelling. Earlier that day, the deceased had intervened in an altercation involving the sons of one of the accused, a circumstance relied upon by the prosecution as furnishing the immediate motive for retaliation.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149 and 302/149 IPC, holding that they had formed an unlawful assembly and, in prosecution of their common object, assaulted the deceased and others.
The High Court, however, modified the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part II/149 IPC on the reasoning that the death was attributable to a single head injury and that the prosecution had not established which particular accused inflicted the fatal blow. It concluded that the common object to commit murder was not proved and reduced the sentence to six years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Reversing this view, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Sections 299 and 300 IPC and the jurisprudence governing the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Referring to settled principles, including those laid down in Daya Nand v. State of Haryana and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that under Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, it is sufficient if the accused intended to inflict the bodily injury that was in fact caused and that such injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
“Once it is established that an unlawful assembly existed and the accused-respondents intended to commit murder of deceased-Bhaggu in furtherance of the common object of such assembly, the individual attribution of the fatal injury fades into insignificance. It is trite law that Section 149 IPC embodies the principle of vicarious liability and renders every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of the common object. The object of the provision is to ensure that criminal liability cannot be evaded on the plea that specific role of the particular accused could not be discerned from the evidence. Conduct of each person forming the unlawful assembly, coupled with participation in prosecution of the common object, is sufficient to fasten vicarious liability on every member of the assembly for the offence committed by any member of that assembly. In such 48 circumstances, it is immaterial as to which accused delivered the fatal injury, once the offence is shown to have been committed in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly”, the Bench further observed in the judgment.
The Bench noted that there was no material suggesting any supervening cause of death or any exception under Section 300 IPC, and therefore, the cumulative facts unmistakably brought the case within Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s modification, and restored the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC along with the sentence of life imprisonment.
Cause Title: Sitaram Kuchhbedia v. Vimal Rana & Others [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 178]
Appearances:
Appellant: Sonal Jain, AOR, Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR, Abhimanyu Singh, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Chinmoy Chaitanya, Aditya Chaudhary, Silpi S Swain, Advocates.
Respondents: Kunal Verma, AOR, Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR, Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR, Shrey Ravi Dambhare, Advocates.