State of Kerala Vs. Sasi
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1996.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 06-04-1995 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.A.No. 123 of 1992)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 06-04-1995 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.A.No. 123 of 1992)
Petitioner: State of Kerala
Respondent: Sasi
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1996.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 06-04-1995 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.A.No. 123 of 1992)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 06-04-1995 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.A.No. 123 of 1992)
Judges: DR. A.S. ANAND & K.T. THOMAS, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 31, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. M.T. George, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. V.B. Saharya, Advocate (A.C.) for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code – Sections 302, 300 – Held High Court erred in holding that respondent could be attributed intention to cause grievous injuries only – Opinion expressed in trial Court was held to be sound and offence was held to be covered by clause thirdly of Section 300 and so respondent liable under Section 302 – High Court finding set aside and respondent directed to undergo imprisonment for life.
Held:
The prosecution has, thus, successfully established that it was the respondent who had caused injuries at the head of the deceased on the fateful night. The only question, however, is about the nature of offence.
The High Court, in our opinion, fell in error in hold-ing, in the face of the evidence on the record that the respond-ent could be attributed intention to cause grievous injuries only. The opinion expressed by the trial court was undoubtedly sound. Since, the offence is covered by Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC, the respondent was liable to be punished under Sec-tion 302 IPC.(Paras 3, 7)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. On 02-11-1990 at about 4-15 p.m., the respondent gave blows to the deceased Kunhuvareed on his head with a bamboo stick. Those blows resulted in fracture of the skull and multiple lacer-ated wounds on the head with resultant damage to the brain. The deceased died in the hospital on 13-11-1990 at about 3.25 a.m. Case was registered and investigation taken in hand. After completion of the investigation, the respondent was committed to stand trial to the Court of Sessions for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses including PWs 15, 16 & 17 – the three medical witnesses, and PWs. 1, 2 & 3 as the eye-witnesses. At the trial, however, PW1 & PW2 turned hostile, after admitting the occurrence to have taken place on the date and at the time alleged by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and consid-ering the defence documents and the statement of the respondent, found the respondent guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him accordingly. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 15-11-1991. The respondent’s appeal to the High Court partly succeeded and while accepting the genesis of the prosecution case, the High Court altered the conviction from under Section 302 IPC to the one under Section 326 IPC and sentenced the respondent to undergo five years RI vide judgment dated 06-04-1995. The State has filed this appeal against the acquisition of the respondent for an offence under Section 302 IPC by special leave.
2. We have heard learned counsel for parties.
3. The respondent has not questioned his conviction. He has not filed any S.L.P. A perusal of the evidence on the record clearly establishes that the occurrence took place in the manner suggest-ed by the prosecution and that on 02-11-1990 at about 4.15 p.m. at the Toddy shop in the village, the respondent gave blows to the deceased on his head with the bamboo stick. The evi-dence also reveals that the deceased was removed to the hospital in a seriously injured condition and he remained in coma till he breathed his last on 13-11-1990. The prosecution has, thus, successfully established that it was the respondent who had caused injuries at the head of the deceased on the fateful night. The only question, however, is about the nature of offence.
4. The trial court while dealing with the nature of offence observed :
“The next question to be considered is as to what is the of fence committed by the accused. If a man deliberately strikes another on the head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod or even a lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull he must, in the absence of any circumstance negativing the presumption be deemed to have intended to cause the death of the victim of such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death. Since the accused gave 3 blows by using MO1 on the head of deceased Kunhuvareed as a result of which the deceased fell down on sustaining fatal injuries on the head and the circumstances indicate that the assault was premeditated and the three blows on the head of deceased were not accidental and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case would squarely fell within the ambit of clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC and the accused is guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”
5. The High Court, as already noticed, did not disagree with the prosecution case regarding the complicity of the respondent with the crime, however, on the question of the offence, the High Court opined:
“On the evidence, there is no doubt the accused had caused grievous injuries upon the deceased, with MO1. Death of the injured took place nearly two weeks after the incident while he was under treatment. In our view, it is not possible to hold on the materials that the accused had either committed murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but only caused grievous injuries on the deceased punishable under Section 326 IPC.”
6. We find it difficult to subscribe to the view of the High Court. To say the least, the approach of the High Court appears to be totally mistaken and not tenable in law. The evidence led by the prosecution through the statements of PW15 Dr. Sarala Devi, PW17 Dr. Mohanlal, the Neuro Surgeon and Dr. Joseph T.John, PW16, who had performed the post mortem examination on the deceased, un-mistakably shows the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. A reference in this connection to injury, recorded as No. 22 in the post mortem report, would be relevant. That injury reads thus :
“Underneath and around injuries 9 to 14, the scalp was contused reddish brown involving whole front quadrants. The frontal bones were comminutedly fractured and along with left parietal bone showed a defect of missing bone 10 x 7.0 cm, transversely with lower back corner at the level of top of ear, exposing intact dura underneath covered by dark brown blood clot 0.1-0.3 cm thick. The brain was lacerated into a defect 5 x 3.0 cm, exposing the brain underneath. Brain had its frontal and left temporal poles semisolid for a depth of 0.5 cm covered by 0.1-0.2 cm thick reddish brown blood clot. Greenish yellow thin layer of pus over duramater and arachanoid matter. Brain (1260 g) was oedematous and the multiple punctate bleeding in white matter. The floor of front cranial fossae were comminutedly fractured. Reddish brown infiltration of clotted blood around fracture sites. “
7. According to the medical opinion, the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The evidence on the record has established that the respondent gave three blows on the head of the deceased and those blows were intentional and not accidental. The attack was premeditated on a vital part of the body. Keeping in view the damage which it caused and the medical opinion to the effect that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the death was attributable directly to the injuries received by the deceased at the hands of the re-spondent on 02-11-1990, the case of the respondent would square-ly fall within the ambit of Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC. The High Court, in our opinion, fell in error in holding, in the face of the evidence on the record that the respondent could be attributed intention to cause grievous injuries only. The opin-ion expressed by the trial court was undoubtedly sound. Since, the offence is covered by Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC, the respondent was liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the High Court as regards the nature of the offence and hold that the respondent is guilty of an offence of murder punishable under Section IPC and consequently allowing this appeal we restore the judgment of the trial court in that behalf and sentence the respondent to undergo imprisonment for life.
8. The bail bonds of the respondent are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sen-tence.
1. On 02-11-1990 at about 4-15 p.m., the respondent gave blows to the deceased Kunhuvareed on his head with a bamboo stick. Those blows resulted in fracture of the skull and multiple lacer-ated wounds on the head with resultant damage to the brain. The deceased died in the hospital on 13-11-1990 at about 3.25 a.m. Case was registered and investigation taken in hand. After completion of the investigation, the respondent was committed to stand trial to the Court of Sessions for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses including PWs 15, 16 & 17 – the three medical witnesses, and PWs. 1, 2 & 3 as the eye-witnesses. At the trial, however, PW1 & PW2 turned hostile, after admitting the occurrence to have taken place on the date and at the time alleged by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and consid-ering the defence documents and the statement of the respondent, found the respondent guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him accordingly. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 15-11-1991. The respondent’s appeal to the High Court partly succeeded and while accepting the genesis of the prosecution case, the High Court altered the conviction from under Section 302 IPC to the one under Section 326 IPC and sentenced the respondent to undergo five years RI vide judgment dated 06-04-1995. The State has filed this appeal against the acquisition of the respondent for an offence under Section 302 IPC by special leave.
2. We have heard learned counsel for parties.
3. The respondent has not questioned his conviction. He has not filed any S.L.P. A perusal of the evidence on the record clearly establishes that the occurrence took place in the manner suggest-ed by the prosecution and that on 02-11-1990 at about 4.15 p.m. at the Toddy shop in the village, the respondent gave blows to the deceased on his head with the bamboo stick. The evi-dence also reveals that the deceased was removed to the hospital in a seriously injured condition and he remained in coma till he breathed his last on 13-11-1990. The prosecution has, thus, successfully established that it was the respondent who had caused injuries at the head of the deceased on the fateful night. The only question, however, is about the nature of offence.
4. The trial court while dealing with the nature of offence observed :
“The next question to be considered is as to what is the of fence committed by the accused. If a man deliberately strikes another on the head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod or even a lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull he must, in the absence of any circumstance negativing the presumption be deemed to have intended to cause the death of the victim of such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death. Since the accused gave 3 blows by using MO1 on the head of deceased Kunhuvareed as a result of which the deceased fell down on sustaining fatal injuries on the head and the circumstances indicate that the assault was premeditated and the three blows on the head of deceased were not accidental and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case would squarely fell within the ambit of clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC and the accused is guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”
5. The High Court, as already noticed, did not disagree with the prosecution case regarding the complicity of the respondent with the crime, however, on the question of the offence, the High Court opined:
“On the evidence, there is no doubt the accused had caused grievous injuries upon the deceased, with MO1. Death of the injured took place nearly two weeks after the incident while he was under treatment. In our view, it is not possible to hold on the materials that the accused had either committed murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but only caused grievous injuries on the deceased punishable under Section 326 IPC.”
6. We find it difficult to subscribe to the view of the High Court. To say the least, the approach of the High Court appears to be totally mistaken and not tenable in law. The evidence led by the prosecution through the statements of PW15 Dr. Sarala Devi, PW17 Dr. Mohanlal, the Neuro Surgeon and Dr. Joseph T.John, PW16, who had performed the post mortem examination on the deceased, un-mistakably shows the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. A reference in this connection to injury, recorded as No. 22 in the post mortem report, would be relevant. That injury reads thus :
“Underneath and around injuries 9 to 14, the scalp was contused reddish brown involving whole front quadrants. The frontal bones were comminutedly fractured and along with left parietal bone showed a defect of missing bone 10 x 7.0 cm, transversely with lower back corner at the level of top of ear, exposing intact dura underneath covered by dark brown blood clot 0.1-0.3 cm thick. The brain was lacerated into a defect 5 x 3.0 cm, exposing the brain underneath. Brain had its frontal and left temporal poles semisolid for a depth of 0.5 cm covered by 0.1-0.2 cm thick reddish brown blood clot. Greenish yellow thin layer of pus over duramater and arachanoid matter. Brain (1260 g) was oedematous and the multiple punctate bleeding in white matter. The floor of front cranial fossae were comminutedly fractured. Reddish brown infiltration of clotted blood around fracture sites. “
7. According to the medical opinion, the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The evidence on the record has established that the respondent gave three blows on the head of the deceased and those blows were intentional and not accidental. The attack was premeditated on a vital part of the body. Keeping in view the damage which it caused and the medical opinion to the effect that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the death was attributable directly to the injuries received by the deceased at the hands of the re-spondent on 02-11-1990, the case of the respondent would square-ly fall within the ambit of Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC. The High Court, in our opinion, fell in error in holding, in the face of the evidence on the record that the respondent could be attributed intention to cause grievous injuries only. The opin-ion expressed by the trial court was undoubtedly sound. Since, the offence is covered by Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC, the respondent was liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the High Court as regards the nature of the offence and hold that the respondent is guilty of an offence of murder punishable under Section IPC and consequently allowing this appeal we restore the judgment of the trial court in that behalf and sentence the respondent to undergo imprisonment for life.
8. The bail bonds of the respondent are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sen-tence.
