Holding

The offence is correctly classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, and the conviction and seven‑year sentence are upheld.

Summary

Baijnath and his cousin Kalika Prasad were involved in a land dispute that was being settled by a village Panchayat. During the meeting Baijnath struck Kalika on the head with a lathi, causing severe head injury; Kalika later died from the injury. The trial court convicted Baijnath under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment, a decision affirmed by the Allahabad High Court. On appeal, Baijnath argued that the proper charge should have been under Section 325 (grievous hurt) and that the sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence showed death resulted directly from the lathi blow, satisfying the elements of Section 304 Part I, and found no infirmity in the conviction or the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the act of striking the deceased with a lathi resulting in death falls under Section 304 Part I IPC or Section 325 IPC.
Whether the seven‑year imprisonment awarded is appropriate for the offence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304(Part I), s. 325

Subjects

land disputeculpable homicideSection 304 IPCgrievous hurtlathi injuryconvictionappealcriminal law

Judgment

l2008] 10 S.C.R. '63"6

A BAlJ NATiH
V.
STATE OF 'UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2008)
JULY 10, 2008
fB
IDR. ~RIJIT PASAYAT ANO '.P. 'SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - s 304 (Patt ii) - 'Conviction vnder-
'Land ·dispute between ·real ccousins -' One cousin gave 1athi
.IC lbJow ·on 'the head ofthe other· resulting in his death - 'Convic-
,.tion Dis 304 (Patt I) with seven years imprisonment by courts
below - Held: Justified - Nature of the injury caused .and
weapon used clearly shows the guilt of the accused - 'Doctor ;
vriho conducted post mortem opined ·that the cause of dea'fh '
, was due to coma as a result of head injury.
0
~ccording to :the prosecution case, -there was 0a land
'disp-ule :between the families ·of two 'brothers-appellant
;and 'K. Panchayat was ·called to 'Settle the dispute . .Appel-
'lalit claimetl that :fhe 1cHsputed 'land 'belonged 1to 'him. !K
fE ·mace a ·counler-claim. Appellant gave a ·1athi blow on the
·head of K who sustained head injury and fell down. Ac-
cused ran inside his house. 'K succumbed to his injuries.
The ·incide·nt was witn-es·sed 'by lhe ·mem·bers ·of ;the
'Panc'hayat. ·F:l.(R. was lodged. 'Investigation was carried
fF rout. The ·ao-ctor conducted lhe :post mortem examination.
The ·1athi was re·covered at 'the ;instance of 'the -accuseCI.
The trial c·ourt 'convicted the ~ppellant-u1s 304 '(Patt ii) 11pc
,and 'Sentence-a 'him ;to limprisonment 'for 7 1years. if.lti·gh
rcoutt upheld the order. 'Hence :the ipreserit appeal.
rG Dismissing 'the ·app·eal, :the 'Court
HELD: :ooctor's ·evidence 'Clearly ·shows ·.that there
·were ·'fractures ·of both 1parital :and 'frontal 'bone. 'He •opine Cl
'that 'the ·caus·e :of tteath 'Was ittue 'to {coma 'as ;a .result rof
'636
BAIJ NATH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH· 637

.. 'f
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

head injury. According to the appellant. doctor admitted A
that the injury in question could have been sustained due
to fall on the iron rod embeCtded in the earth. The evidence
clearly established that the accused had given lalhi blow
on the head of the deceased which resulted in the death
~, ._."r: of the deceased. The High Court rightly noted that the 8
case is clearly covered u/s. 304 (Part I) IPC. Considering
the nature of the injury and the weapon used clearly
shows the guilt of the accused. That beipg so, custodial
sentence of 7 years as imposed does not suffer from any
infirmity. [Para 7] [639-D,E,F] c
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1050 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
.., . Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1995
D

Pramod Kumar Yadav, Satya Prakash Sharma and
Rameshw.ar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant.
~atnakar Dash, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and G Venkateswara
Rao for the Respondent. E

The Judgment of the Court was ~elivered by
Dr. AijlJIT PASAYAT, J·. 1. Leave granted.
.~
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction of the ap- F
,)..
pellant for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and the sentence
of imprisonment for 7 years as awarded by the trial Court and
confirmed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench,
• Lucknow.
G
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
~
~

Accused appellant Baijnath and deceased Kalika Prasad •
were real cousin. The father of the accused Beche Lal and Khargi
father of Kalika (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

f •
A was the informant, were real brothers and they lived separately
in two adjoining h0uses . · There was some dispute in between
the two families regarding 'nat>dan' and fixing of 'kuntas' {peg_s),
which were used for tying the cattle. On the date of the occur-
rence that is 13.7.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., a Panchayat had
~
B been crtlled to settle the dispute in between .the two families. 1- °':
I
The village Pradhan and many others were also present in the
Panchayat. Claims and cou11ter claims were made by accused t-
and deceased. When accused Baij Nath declared that the dis-
puted land belonged to him and will not be given to the deceased
c who made a counter-claim.
Accused-Baijnath gave a lathi blow on the head.of the de-
ceased Kali Prasad, who sustained head injury, and on account
of this Lathi blow, fell down. Accused Baijnath ran inside his
house. Khargi, the father of the deceased along with other vii- •.
!
D lagers took his injured son Kali Prasad to the police station but r L
on the way to the police station Kali Prasad succumbed to his
injuries. So the d~ad body was taken to the police station and a
written F.l.R. Ext. Ka-1 was lodged. in the police station. One
Ganga Prasad had scribed this report. The occurrence was
E witnessed by Ganga Prasad, Thakur Prasad, Brijesh arid many
others, who were present in the Panchayat. On the basis of this
F. l.R chick report, Ext. Ka-12 was prepared and a case was
registered against the accused, now the appellant. lnvestiga-
tion was entrusted to S.O. Rajinder Singh (PW.5) SJ S.M. lewari
....
F· vyas directed to conduct the inquest of the dead body. The in- -'< ''
·quest report is Ext. Ka. The dead body was sent for post mortem
examination, which was conqucted by Dr. Lalit Kumar (P.W.6.) I

The post mortem report is Ext. Ka-10. The investigating officer •
I
~
prepared the site map Ext.Ka-6 and also recovered the lathi
Ext.1 at the instance of the accused. Recovery memo Ext. A-7
G
was also prepared. After completing the investigation, charge
sheet Ext. Ka.:9 was submitted against the accused under Sec- r- .....
tion 302 IPC.
Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the
H accused.
BAIJ NATH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 639
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

The trial Court on consideration of the materials on record, A
more particularly, the evidence of eye-witnesses came to hold
that the proper conviction would be under Section 304 Part I,
IPC. The conviction and the sentence were challenged before
the High Court which by the impugned order dismissed the ap-
; ~
peal. B
4. Learned counsel for the appellant took the stand that
the proper conviction would be in terms of Section 325 IPC and
not under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the c
order passed by the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.
6. We find that Dr. Lalit Kumar (PW-6) who examined the
dead body of the deceased for the purpose of post mortem
found the following anti mortem injury:
D
"Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm front on interior part of
right side scalp, 10cm. above middle right eye-brow,
wound in muscle deep."
7. Doctor's evidence clearly shows that there were frac-
tures of both parital and frontal bone. He opined that the cause E
of death was due to coma as a result of head injury. According
to the appellant doctor admitted that the injury in question could
have been sustained due to fall on the iron rod embedded in
the earth. The evidence clearly established that the accused
~ ·had given lathi blow on the head of the deceased which resulted F
.I<
in the death of the deceased. As rightly noted by the High Court
the case is clearly covered under Section 304 Part I, IPC. Con ..
sidering the nature of the injury and the weapon used clearly
shows the guilt of the accused. That being so, custodial sen..,
tence of 7 years as imposed does not suffer from any infirmity:.
G
8. The appeal· is dismissed .
...,
N.J. Appeal dismissed.