[Section 302] Do death by single blow amounts to conviction under Section 302?

 

Whether single blow/stab of injury that result to death attract Section 302 IPC?

Section 302 of IPC says whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

When culpable homicide amounts to Murder?  

Under Section 300 of IPC  culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or

If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or

If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

 

What is Culpable homicide and what is the punishment for the culpable homicide that does not amount to murder?

Under Section 299, Who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Explanation 1

A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2

Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3

The causing of the death of child in the mother`s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of  that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Under Section 304 of IPC whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death (PART I),

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death (PART II).

In the recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India while giving relief to the Appellant/Accused  held to be liable to punishment under Section 304 Part I setting aside conviction under Section 302 that was passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal case  upholding  the Judgment and Order   of   conviction   and   sentence   passed   by   the   learned   IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.

FACT OF THE CASE

Accused and his friends were enjoying beer party at a place of incident ( a restaurant). Deceased man, Kalidas served extra beer to two persons who were outsiders. At this accused got angry, quarrel started, during the scuffle accused took out knife from his pocket and stabbed from behind damaging his vital organ i.e liver. The deceased succumbed to injury after few days.

            The Learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant/ Accused relied on the decisions of this Court in the cases of  Kunhayippu Vs State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307 and Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 SCC 557  that for causing a single stab injury, section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. It was submitted that the motive alleged for the incident is prior to four months of the incident and the prosecution failed to establish and prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. It was also submitted that the occurrence had taken place out of a sudden and grave provocation and therefore the Appellant has to be convicted for the lesser offence than Section 302 IPC.

    It is also submitted that,  the occurrence had taken place out of a sudden and grave provocation and therefore the offence would fall under Exception I to Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the appellant has to be convicted for the lesser offence than Section 302 IPC.

     The Learned Counsel appearing for state vehemently submitted in support of numbers of decision of this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that number of injuries is irrelevant and that the Appellant/Accused has caused injury by a knife blow on the vital part of the body that is Lever- is relevant. It was submitted that considering the fact that the accused was having a knife; the injury inflicted by the accused was on the vital part of the body; and that there was no any grave and sudden provocation established and provedIt was submitted by the State that the Accused was rightly convicted by the High Court on the fact the accused had knife with him and that there was intention on his part to cause bodily injury.

LIST OF CASES RELIED

1.     Mahesh   Balmiki   v. State   of   M.P.,  (2000)   1  SCC 319 (  A single blow may, in some cases entails conviction under Section 302 IPC, in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non- vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him.)

 

2.      Dhirajbhai   Gorakhbhai   Nayak v. State   of Gujarat (2003) (for application of exceptions under Section 300 IPC, it must be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. 

 

3. Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P.  (2006) 11 SCC 444 ( the intention to cause death by accused must be looked into from a combination of several circumstances leading to death of deceased person

 

4.   Arun Raj v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 457 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 155 ( held there is not fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted, 302 would not be attracted. The nature of weapon used and vital part of the body where blow was struck and intention of the accused to cause death of the deceased are relevant.)

 

                       After hearing both the parties at length, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed after referring to numbers of decision that there is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention if causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, the events which precedes will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused  was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence.

       

Referring to the case of Jafel Biswas vs. State of West Bengal (2019) wherein it was observed that the absence of motive does not disperse a prosecution case if the prosecution succeed in proving the same. When there are definite evidence proving an incident and eye witness account prove the role of accused, absence of proving of the motive by prosecution does not affect prosecution case.

 

        Now considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore case would fall under section 304 Part-I. Hence the court modified the sentence of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I.