Sundaram Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1271 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1271 of 2000
Petitioner: Sundaram
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1271 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1271 of 2000
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 19, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 304, Pt. II – Culpable homicide – No specific finding as to the intention while inflicting injury – Medical evidence showing clotted blood in plural cavity – Lungs perforated but no reason discernible – Death not certainly attributable to injury in question. Held that it is fit case to bring offence under Section 304, Pt. II.
(Paras 5, 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have confined this appeal to the nature of offence as we are not inclined to interfere with the finding that the injuries had been inflicted by the appellant on the deceased. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased -P. Shanmugam, the cousin of the appellant.
3. Among the four ante mortem injuries noticed by the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, the injuries nos. 2 & 4 alone need be reproduced hereunder. They are thus:
“2. Deep perforated injury of 5 cm x 2 cm with a loop of intestine (10”) projecting outside from the injury;
4. Swelling on the left lower chest with crepitus (surgical emphysema) noted. Injury No.4 is a consequence of injury No. 2. The left shoulder is slightly swollen (due to injecting drug)”
4. The Doctor who examined the internal organs noted that left plural cavity was filled with clotted blood and that all other organs were normal except that the spleen showed a deep cut injury on the upper surface. Regarding the cause of death the Doctor stated that the deceased thereafter died due to shock from the injuries leading to the cardio-respiratory failure.
5. When blood was found in the plural cavity and surgical emphysema was also noted by the Doctor, there is high amount of possibility of lungs being involved in the injuries. Therefore, the death cannot unequivocally be attributed to Injury No. 2. quoted above. How the lungs were perforated cannot be discerned from the details of the medical evidence given by P.W. 6 who conducted the postmortem examination.
6. In the light of the aforesaid grey area for fixing the exact cause of death, we cannot confirm the conviction for the offence of first decree of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, it would be culpable homicide falling under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that there is no specific finding as to the intention which the offender would have entertained while inflicting the injuries, we deem it fit to bring the offence down to Section 304 -II of the Indian Penal Code.
7. In the circumstances of the case, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we impose the aforesaid sentence on the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have confined this appeal to the nature of offence as we are not inclined to interfere with the finding that the injuries had been inflicted by the appellant on the deceased. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased -P. Shanmugam, the cousin of the appellant.
3. Among the four ante mortem injuries noticed by the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, the injuries nos. 2 & 4 alone need be reproduced hereunder. They are thus:
“2. Deep perforated injury of 5 cm x 2 cm with a loop of intestine (10”) projecting outside from the injury;
4. Swelling on the left lower chest with crepitus (surgical emphysema) noted. Injury No.4 is a consequence of injury No. 2. The left shoulder is slightly swollen (due to injecting drug)”
4. The Doctor who examined the internal organs noted that left plural cavity was filled with clotted blood and that all other organs were normal except that the spleen showed a deep cut injury on the upper surface. Regarding the cause of death the Doctor stated that the deceased thereafter died due to shock from the injuries leading to the cardio-respiratory failure.
5. When blood was found in the plural cavity and surgical emphysema was also noted by the Doctor, there is high amount of possibility of lungs being involved in the injuries. Therefore, the death cannot unequivocally be attributed to Injury No. 2. quoted above. How the lungs were perforated cannot be discerned from the details of the medical evidence given by P.W. 6 who conducted the postmortem examination.
6. In the light of the aforesaid grey area for fixing the exact cause of death, we cannot confirm the conviction for the offence of first decree of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, it would be culpable homicide falling under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that there is no specific finding as to the intention which the offender would have entertained while inflicting the injuries, we deem it fit to bring the offence down to Section 304 -II of the Indian Penal Code.
7. In the circumstances of the case, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we impose the aforesaid sentence on the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
