1993 JTR(SC) 642
1993 CriLR 662 ; 1993 Supp JT 597 ; 1993 3 Scale 370 ; 1993 3 SCC 722 ; 1993 SCC(Cri) 989
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Kerala High Court)
M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., A.S. Anand, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.
SUBRAN AND OTHERS, PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA, RESPONDENT.
Review Petition No. 1394 of 1993
decided on August 5, 1993.
Conviction under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable if the accused did not cause the fatal blow, the injuries inflicted were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and there was no intention to kill, regardless of the cumulative effect of injuries by multiple assailants.
Act
Referred
:INDIAN PENAL CODE
: S.302, S.300
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300(3) and 302 - Conviction for murder - Medical evidence - Intention - Conviction for the substantive offence of murder under Section 302 IPC is not appropriate where the accused is not attributed the fatal injury and the injuries caused by him, either individually or collectively, are not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death - In the absence of material showing intention to cause death, conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter cannot be sustained - The scope of clause (3) of Section 300 IPC must be considered in proper perspective - Where death is a result of the cumulative effect of injuries inflicted by multiple accused, the specific offence committed by each must be determined. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
Four individuals were accused of inflicting injuries on a person who subsequently died. One of the accused was not identified as the person who caused the fatal blow. Medical evidence indicated that the injuries caused by this specific individual were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and there was no evidence on record to show that the injuries were inflicted with the intention to cause death.
Findings of Court:
The conviction of the first appellant for the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained as the medical evidence showed the injuries attributed to him were not sufficient to cause death and no intention to murder could be attributed to him.
Issues: Whether an accused can be convicted for the substantive offence of murder under Section 302 IPC when the injuries inflicted by them were not sufficient to cause death and there was no intention to kill, despite the deceased dying from the cumulative effect of injuries caused by multiple accused.
Ratio Decidendi: For a conviction under Section 302 IPC, the accused must either have caused the fatal injury, inflicted injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or acted with the intention to cause death. If these conditions are not met, a conviction for murder simpliciter is neither desirable nor appropriate, even if the cumulative effect of injuries from multiple assailants caused the death.
Result: Judgment reviewed and substitution of the paragraph effected.
Facts of the case:
Four individuals were accused of inflicting injuries on a person who subsequently died. One of the accused was not identified as the person who caused the fatal blow. Medical evidence indicated that the injuries caused by this specific individual were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and there was no evidence on record to show that the injuries were inflicted with the intention to cause death.
Findings of Court:
The conviction of the first appellant for the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained as the medical evidence showed the injuries attributed to him were not sufficient to cause death and no intention to murder could be attributed to him.
Issues: Whether an accused can be convicted for the substantive offence of murder under Section 302 IPC when the injuries inflicted by them were not sufficient to cause death and there was no intention to kill, despite the deceased dying from the cumulative effect of injuries caused by multiple accused.
Ratio Decidendi: For a conviction under Section 302 IPC, the accused must either have caused the fatal injury, inflicted injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or acted with the intention to cause death. If these conditions are not met, a conviction for murder simpliciter is neither desirable nor appropriate, even if the cumulative effect of injuries from multiple assailants caused the death.
Result: Judgment reviewed and substitution of the paragraph effected.
M.M.KASHYAP, M.T.George, ROY ABRAHIM, Sudhir Gopi
ORDER
1. On a review of the judgment, we find that the opinion expressed at the pages 10 to 12 (internal) corresponding to para 11 of the reported judgment in (1993) 3 SCC page 32, is capable of being misinterpreted. The opinion expressed therein was required to be confined to the peculiar facts of other case, but it tends to give an impression as if it is a general exposition of law, which it was not meant to be. We, therefore, substitute that paragraph reading "Since appellant 1 Subran ... committed by the four appellants ?" (pages 10 to 12), by following :
"Appellant 1, Subran, had rightly not been charged for the substantive offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. Subran, appellant 1, was not attributed the fatal injury or identified as the person who caused the fatal blow. According to the medical evidence, none of the injuries allegedly caused by appellant-Subran either individually or taken collectively with the other injuries caused by him, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Suku. There is no material on the record to show that the injuries inflicted by Subran, with the chopper, were inflicted with the intention to cause death of Suku. Under these circumstances, the conviction of the first appellant, Subran, for an offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter was neither desirable nor appropriate. The High Court, it appears, failed to consider the scope of clause (3) of Section 300 IPC in its proper perspective. In the facts of the present case, the intention to cause murder of Suku, deceased could not be attributed to the said appellant as the medical evidence also unmistakably show that the injuries attributed to him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. Appellant 1 Subran, therefore, could not have been convicted for the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC and his conviction for the said offence cannot be sustained. That Suku died as a result of cumulative effect of all the injuries inflicted on him by all the four appellants stands established on the record. The question, therefore, rises what offence died the four appellants commit ?"
2. The judgment is accordingly reviewed and the aforesaid substitution in the judgment effected.