Injury by blunt side of weapon no ground to convert conviction from S 302 to S 304 Part II: SC

The Supreme Court recently upheld conviction of three men for the offence of murder, rejecting their contention that there was no premeditation and intention to cause death, which could be the result of an accidental fall, as opined by the doctor.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran noted that the accused came to the house of the deceased with the intention of questioning them regarding the visit made to the deity installed in the disputed property, which had been unequivocally proved by the oral testimony of witnesses.

The accused came to the house of the deceased armed with deadly weapons which clearly points to the premeditation and the intention to cause injuries that were likely to cause death. The facts regarding the fight and the overt acts, as disclosed from the evidence, do not commend us to find an offence covered under Part II of Section 304 nor fall under any of the Exceptions to Section 300; resulting in a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the bench said.

The court held the medical evidence, that the injury could be caused either manually by a hard and blunt object or by an accidental fall, did not detract from the finding under Section 302, especially considering the ocular testimony; of the accused having come with deadly weapons to the house of the victims, the altercation and fight that ensued and the overt acts of the accused, inflicting injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased and victims, totally corroborated by the medical evidence regarding injuries on the deceased and each of the injured witnesses.

The fatal injury caused to the deceased was by a blow to the head; a vital part of the body, with the reverse side of an axe. The intention thus is clear, from the deadly nature of the weapons carried by the accused, who were the aggressors, who trespassed into the house of the victims and wielded such weapons in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims; one of whom died. The severity of the injury, caused by a blow to the head, definitely resulted in the death; though after a few days, as deposed by the Doctor, the bench said.

The three appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000 each. They were also convicted under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for the injuries sustained by the grandchildren of the deceased, imposing a sentence of 6 months and 1 year respectively. The high court confirmed the findings of the trial court leading to the conviction and affirmed the sentence imposed.

The appellants contended there was no premeditation and no intention to cause death; not even the remotest knowledge of an injury being caused which was likely to cause death. In fact, they carried cutting weapons. However, the injury on the deceased, even according to the doctor who examined him at the first instance, indicated that there were no incised injuries. They also contended that the injury which resulted in death, could have been caused by an accidental fall. In the totality of the circumstances, if at all the accused are found guilty of the alleged crime, they can only be convicted under Part II of Section 304, the counsel for the accused argued.

The state counsel said it was the accused who trespassed into the house of the victims, including the deceased, and attacked them. There was absolutely no provocation on the part of the victims and it was with premeditation and intention to cause death that the accused came to the house of the deceased, armed with deadly weapons. The fact that the deceased died after 25 days in a hospital would not result in a different finding than that of murder, since the single blow caused to the head of the deceased led to the death.

Examining the matter, the bench said, "At the outset, we have to notice that the ocular witnesses were all grandchildren of the deceased; which by itself would not result in eschewing their testimony".

It is trite that, merely because witnesses are related, they cannot be deemed interested, especially in a case where there is ocular testimony. The prosecution unequivocally proved that the altercation leading to the scuffle occurred in the house of the deceased, wherein the accused had come with deadly weapons, clearly with the intention to harm the inmates of the house, one of whom had visited the disputed property to offer prayers, the court said.

The court also noticed a statement regarding animosity, brought out in cross-examination, stating that, motive of enmity is a doubled edged weapon.

"Animosity alleged can even lead to an accusation of false allegation on the part of the complainant to deliberately implicate the accused," it said.

This makes it imminent for the court to examine the testimony of witnesses with a hawk’s eye to understand whether it is truthful or the witnesses are to be disbelieved. The relationship of the ocular witnesses with the deceased is of no consequence, as the possibility of outsiders being available inside the house of the injured is very remote. It also has to be kept in mind that all the ocular witnesses were injured which makes their testimony credible and believable, the bench said.

In the case, the bench said, "We have to keep in mind that there was a scuffle which ensued after the accused came to the house of the deceased, with deadly weapons. That they carried deadly weapons have been spoken of by all the three ocular witnesses, further corroborated by PW-4, a neighbour...We find that nothing suspicious, to doubt the veracity of the ocular witnesses, has come out in their depositions either in the chief-examination or cross".

The court pointed out that the eye-witnesses, who suffered injuries in the incident, spoke of the blow to the head of the deceased.

The court added that the mere fact that prosecution witnesses did not speak of a reverse hit by an axe in the Section 161 statement could not lead to their testimony of the overt act being disbelieved. The embellishment, even if ignored, the overt act stands proved, it said.

The bench thus dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to surrender within a period of two weeks to serve out the life term sentence.

Case Title: Maukam Singh & Others Vs State of Madhya Pradesh