| Citation | AIR 2023 SC |
| Date of Judgment | JULY 20, 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal No. 2043 of 2023 |
| Appellant | Anbazhagan |
| Respondent | The state rep. by the inspector of police |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice. B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala |
| Referred | Section- 304 part1 of IPC or 304 part2 of IPC |
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The appellant is an agriculturist who owns the agricultural land in Sirukinathupalayam in Tamil Nadu and the deceased (Balasubramaniam) also have an agricultural land adjacent to his land.
- At the time of incident appellant and his father cultivating the cassava plant on 25.10.2015 and arranged lorry for transporting the same but the deceased threatened the lorry driver and said he should not drive through the pathway leading to the appellant’s land and appellant said the driver to move lorry to the field to load the crop.
- After the verbal altercation between the appellant and deceased for sometime, appellant picked up a hoe(gardening tool) and strike a single blow on the head of the deceased and as a result the deceased fell unconscious and later died in the hospital.
- The F.I.R lodged on 25.10.2015 and after investigation police filed a chargesheet for the offence of murder and The Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal vide order on 06.09.2017 that after seeing all the evidences, the case was not punishable under the section 302 of IPC but punishable under section 304 part1 of IPC.
- The High court also came to the conclusion that the trial court was right and the appellant is guilty for offence punishable under section 304 part1 of IPC.
- The case referred to the above and appellant is before the Supreme court with the present appeal.
ISSUES
- Whether the appellant is punishable under the section 304 part1 of IPC or 304 part2 of IPC?
ARGUMENTS
On the behalf of appellant:-
- Mr. S. Nagamuthu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the manner of the offence occurred and role of appellant, the conviction change from section 304 Part I of the IPC to section 304 Part II of the IPC.
- He said it does not fall within clause thirdly of section 300 of IPC.
- All that shows the appellant is knowledge and not intention.
On the behalf of the respondent state
- Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., the learned counsel appearing for the respondent state, submitted the trial court and the high court was right as the appellant is guilty for the section 304 part1 of IPC and not fall under the section 304 part2 of IPC.
- He submitted that the exception 4 of section 300 of IPC attracted therefore the court rightly convicted the appellant.
JUDGEMENT
- After hearing by both the parties and going through the material on records and the role of appellant and the post mortem report, the death was caused by the shock and hemorrhage due to head injury.
- So the only argument herein is that the accused has knowledge that he is likely by his act to cause death and not the intention to kill the deceased.
- For that here the court explains the distinction between the word intent and knowledge.
- Intention is a state of mind it can be deduced and inferred from the other facts which are proved and the intent can not be proved by direct evidence, the intention may be proved by the act before or subsequently to the incident.
- The intention can be show by the facts and relevant circumstances of the case such as :-
1. The nature of the weapon used.
2. The place where the injuries were inflicted.
3. The nature of the injuries caused.
4. The opportunity available which the accused gets.
- In knowledge there is awareness but in intention the person is also aware about the consequences of an act but they both are different because in knowledge the consequence may follow or not, it is not necessarily the consequences intended but in intention it required purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.
- If the act of an accused falls under the first two clauses of culpable homicide under the section 299 of IPC it is punishable under the part1 of section 304 of IPC and if falls within the third clause then it is punishable under part 2 of the section 304 of IPC. Therefore part1 of section 304 of IPC apply for the guilty intention and part2 of section 304 of IPC apply for the guilt knowledge.
- In determining question whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge and the injury is sufficient in nature to cause death, but the fact that the act is without any planning and is done in sudden fight and quarrel or that the circumstances which justify the injury is accidental or unintentional and he intended to simple injury which lead to inferior of guilty knowledge which falls under the part2 of the section 304 of the IPC.
- So after viewing all over evidence on the record the case does not fall within the clause thirdly of section 300 of the IPC
- The present appeal partly allowed and the conviction of appellant under section 304 part1 of the IPC altered to one under Section 304 Part2 of the IPC and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Aman Maurya of Greater Noida College Of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
