For Holding Accused Guilty U/s. 304 IPC Second Part, It Is Not Necessary To Bring His Case Within One Of The Exceptions To Sec 300: SC Observes
The Supreme Court has observed that for holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala held, “To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.”
The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Madras High Court by which it dismissed his appeal thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu appeared for the appellant while Advocate Joseph Aristotle S. appeared for the State.
In this case, on the fateful day of the incident, the father and son were working in their agricultural field early in the morning. They wanted to transport the crop they had harvested and for that purpose, they had called for a lorry. The lorry arrived; however, the deceased did not allow the driver of the lorry to use the disputed pathway which led to a verbal altercation between the appellant and the deceased.
After quite some time of the verbal altercation, the appellant hit a blow on the head of the deceased with the weapon of offence (weed axe) resulting in his death in the hospital. The Trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The same was affirmed by the High Court aggrieved by which the appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court after considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties noted, “Looking at the overall evidence on record, we find it difficult to come to the conclusion that when the appellant struck the deceased with the weapon of offence, he intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The weapon of offence in the present case is a common agriculture tool. If a man is hit with a weed axe on the head with sufficient force, it is bound to cause, as here, death. It is true that the injuries shown in the post mortem report are fracture of the parietal bone as well as the temporal bone.”
The Court said that the deceased died on account of cerebral compression i.e., internal head injuries, however, the moot question is whether that by itself is sufficient to draw an inference that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient to cause death.
“We are of the view that the appellant could only be attributed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause the death. It is in such circumstances that we are inclined to take the view that the case on hand does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC”, held the Court.
The Court in view of the matter and bearing the principles of law altered the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part I of the IPC to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the appeal and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
Cause Title- Anbazhagan v. The State (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 632)
