Supreme Court of India
BUDHI LALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1092
- Decided
- 26 September 2008
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Court held that the facts did not constitute murder under Section 302 IPC and that conviction under Section 304 Part‑I IPC with a ten‑year sentence was appropriate.
Summary
Budhi Lal, who lived with two wives, was accused of murdering his second wife Jashu Devi on the night of 9‑10 August 1985. A guest, PW‑3, who was staying in the house that night, testified that he saw Budhi Lal sitting on the deceased's chest and assaulting her, and the accused admitted that he and the victim were together in the same room. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the evidence established the elements of murder and whether Section 302 was the proper charge, analyzing the distinctions between Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC. The Court held that while the presence of the witness was proved, the facts did not satisfy the criteria for murder; the appropriate conviction was under Section 304 Part‑I IPC. Consequently, the conviction was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder with a ten‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the testimony of PW‑3 establishes the accused's presence and culpability sufficient for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the facts of the case satisfy the legal requirements for murder under Section 300 IPC or warrant conviction under Section 304 Part‑I IPC.
- Interpretation of the mens rea elements in Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 299, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304
Subjects
murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderIPC Section 302IPC Section 304 Part‑Iintentionknowledgeevidenceconviction alteration
Judgment
A [2008]13 S.C.R. 1015
BUDHI LAL A
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2008)
-* SEPTEMBER 26, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
.t SHARMA, JJ.]
' Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302 and 304 (Part I) - Murder - Prosecution case· c
that accused murdered his wife - Visitor in the house witnessed
accused assaulting his wife - Conviction u/s 302 and RI for
life by courts below - Justification of - Held: Presence of the
witness in the house established - Accused himself accepted
-+ that he was with deceased at the night of occurrence - Also D
statement by the daughter of accused that herfather suspected
his wife was having illicit relationship with witness- Thus, courts
below rightly held accused guilty - However, on facts, convic-
tion altered to one u/s. 304 (Part I) with custodial sentence of
10 years. E
ss. 299 and 300 - 'Culpable homicide not amounting to
murder' and 'murder' - Distinction between - Explained.
.___. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was
residing with his two wives in the same house. On the F
fateful day, PW-3 had gone to the house of the appellant
to purchase pair of bullocks and stayed in the house at .
night In the intervening night, the appellant murdered his
second wife-JD. Next day the appellant told the villagers
that his wife died of pain in the stomach. FIR was lodged.
G
Investigation was carried out. The doctor-PW-1 con-
ducted post mortem. He opined that JD died due to suf-
~
focation as a result of obstruction in the respiratory pas-
sage. In the examination uls. 313 Cr.P.C., accused ac-
1015 H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 13 S.C.R.
A
A cepted that he and the deceased were sleeping together
in the night of the incident. Witnesses were examined. PW-
3 stated that at the midnight, he saw the appellant sitting
on the chest of JD and assaulting her. When PW-3 asked
the appellant as to what he was doing, he told him that he
B was telling his wife to behave and that PW-3 should leave
the place and sleep in another room. Trial court convicted
·-
the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous
imprisonment for life. High Court upheld the order. Hence
the present appeal.
c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 PW.3 gave enough reason as to why he
was prei;ent in the house. Even otherwise, PW.4-daugh-
ter of the accused, though, she resiled from the statement
made during investigation, clearly stated that PW.3 was
D t-
sleeping in their house in a separate room. She further
s?ted that her father suspected fidelity of the deceased
and was under the impression that she was having illicit
relationship with PW.3. In the examination u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
also the accused had accepted this position. Therefore,
E the presence of PW.3 has been clearly established by evi-
dence on record. Apart from that, the trial court and the
High Court rightly noted that the accused accepted that
he was with the deceased in the night of occurrence and
they were sleeping in the same room. Therefore, the trial
F court and the High Court were justified in holding the
appellant guilty. [Paras 9 and 10) [1020,C-F]
1.2 Considering the factual scenario and the man-
ner of assault, as alleged by the prosecution, the appro-
priate conviction would be u/s. 304 (Part-I) IPC. Custodial
G
sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. [Para
25) [1026,G]
t--
Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kera/a AIR 1966 SC 1874;
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; State of
H Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr. 1976 (4)
BUDHI LAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1017
.,;,
SCC 382; Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors. v. State A
of Andhra Pradesh JT 2002 (6) SC 27 4; Augustine Saldanha
v. .State of Karnataka 2003 (10) SCC 472; Thangaiya v. State
of Tamil Nadu 2005 (9) SCC 650; Sunder Lal v. State of
Rajasthan 2007 (10) sec 371 - relied on.
--~
Case Law Reference B
AIR 1966 SC 1874 Relied on. Para 16
AIR 1958 SC 465 Relied on. Paras 17,18,
19,20,21
1976 (4) sec 382 Relied on. Para 24 c
JT 2002 (6) SC 274 Relied on. Para 24
2003 (10) sec 472 Relied on. Para 24
2005 (9) sec 650 Relied on. Para 24
D
--~
2001 (10) sec 371 Relied on. Para 24
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1537 of 2008
From the Judgment and Order dated 17/12/2007 of the
E
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Crl. Appeal No. 169 of
2007
D.N. Goburdhan, Pinky Anand, Ankur Mittal and Abhijat P.
Medh for the Appellant.
'
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
the parties.
G
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
'+ Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court dismissing the appeal
filed by the appellant. In the appeal challenge was to the order
of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli H
. 1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1986 for offence punishable under
Section 302 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The
appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life.
4. Prosecution story in brief is that house of Budhi Lal (ap-
B pellant) is one kilometer away from village abadi in villageAirash.
Appellant got married firstly to one Sobati Devi, but he had no
issue from her. Later, he got married to Jashu Devi (hereinafter
referred to as the 'deceased') and from her he had seven chil-
dren. Out of the seven, eldest daughter Sushila was married.
C Both the ladies used to live with Budhi Lal in aforesaid house.
Jaspal (PW.3) of village Kaphalkhet came to the house of Bud hi
Lal on 9.8.1985, in connection with purchase of a pair of bul-
locks, belonging to him. The deal was settled at Rs.1200/- and
in that night Jaspal stayed in the house of Budhi Lal. After hav-
D ing meals the family members and Jaspal slept in the house. In
said intervening night i.e. 9/101h August, 1985, appellant Bud hi
Lal at about 2 a.m. committed murder of Jashu Devi. Accord-
ing to the prosecution Jaspal woke up to go to toilet and saw
from a window that Budhi Lal sitting on the chest of Jashu Devi,
E assaulting her with his hands. On being questioned, why he is
doing so, Budhi Lal told him that he was telling his wife to be-
have. Appellant asked Jaspal being guest he should leave the
place and sleep in another room. Next morning, Budhi Lal told
the villagers that his wife Jashu Devi has died of pain in her
F stomach. He asked Jaspal to go to the houses of his brothers
and relations living in village Jilasu and inform them about the
death of Jashu Devi. jaspal (PW.3) informed the relatives of
Budhi Lal, as told by him about the death of his wife due to pain
in her stomach and came back to the village. Meanwhile, Sobati
G Devi informed the village Pradhan about the death of Jashu
Devi. The village Pradhan came to the spot at 10 a.m. and there-
after got sent the information of death of Jashu Devi to Patwari
of the area (in Uttarakhand hills Patwaris are given police pow-
ers). The Patti Patwari Sri Kareem Bux (PW.6) received the
information on 10.8.1985 at his Chauki when he returned back
H
BUDHI LAL v STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1019
-,;. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
in the evening. The entry of written information (Ext. A-2) sent A
through Ashadu Lal was made in the General Diary (copy of
which is extract Ext. A-3), by the Investigation Officer Kareem
Bux on the next day at 11.30 a.m., Patwari came to the spot
and took the dead body in his possession, sealed it and pre-
-~
pared the inquest report (Ext. A-4) and sketch of the dead body B
(Ext. A-5). He also prepared a letter of request (Ext. A-6) for the
post mortem examination and sent the dead bodyfor autopsy.
Meanwhile, he prepared site plan (Ext. A-9) on same day i.e.
;
11.8.1985. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses
of the inquest report. The post mortem examination was con- c
ducted by Dr. S.K. Srivastava (PW.1) on 12.8.1995 at 4.30 p.m.
at District HeasJquarter, Gopeshwar (District Chamoli). The said
Medical Officer prepared post mortem examination report (Ext.
A-1). He opined that Jashu Devi had died due to suffocation as
a result of obstruction in respiratory passage. He also recorded
- .+ D
the ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased.
Investigating Officer Kareem Bux (PW.6) thereafter examined
Bud hi Lal and his daughter _Sushila. The Investigating Officer
also interrogated other witnesses. On completion of the inves-
tigation, charge sheet (Ext. A-8) was filed by Investigating Of-
ficer on 20..11.1985, before the Magistrate concerned. E
5. The case was committed by the court of learned Mag-
istrate concerned to the Court of Sessions: Since the appellant
pleaded innocence, trial was held. Six witnesses were exam-
>~ ined to further the prosecution version. Primarily, _relying on the F
evidence of PW.3, the learned Trial Judge directed conviction
of the accused, as aforenoted. The Trial Court, it needs to be
pointed out, also referred to the evidence of PW.5 before whom
accused gave varying versions as to how the deceased had
died. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the deceased
G
and the accused were last seen and in the examination under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'the Code'), the accused had accepted that he and the de-
ceased were sleeping together in the night of the incident.
6. In appeal before the High Court, the primary stand was H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A that the evidence of PW.3 should not have been relied upon
and in any event, a case under Section 302 IPC was not made
out. The High Court did not find substance in the plea and dis-
missed the appeal.
7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel-
8 lant submitted that presence of PW.3 in the house has not been
established ancl in any event, in view of the accepted prosecu-
. tion version, a case under Section 302 IPC is not made out.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, sup-
ported the judgment.
c
9. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, it appears that PW.3
has given enough reason as to why he was present in the house.
Even otherwise!, PW.4, the daughter of the accused, though,
she resiled from the statement made during investigation, clearly
stated that PW.3 was sleeping in their house in a separate room.
0
This witness further stated that her father, the accused sus-
pected fidelity of the deceased and was under the impression
that she was having illicit relationship with PW.3. In the. exami-
nation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, the accused had ac-
cepted this position. Therefore, the presence of PW.3 has been
E clearly established by evidence on record. Apart from that, as
rightly noted by the Trial Court and the High Court, the accused
accepted that he was with the deceased in the night of occur-
rence and they were sleeping in the same room. _,~
F 10. Therefore, the Trial Court and the High Court were jus-
tified in holding the appellant guilty.
11. The residual question is whether Section 302 IPC has
application?
12. This brings us fo the crucial question as to which was
G the appropriate provision to be applied. In the Scheme of the
IPC culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All
'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking
generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of
murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the·
H purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the
BUDHI LAL v. STATE C>F UTTARAKHAND 1021
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees '-A
of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, 'cufpable
homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of cul-
pable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'murde_r'.
The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the sec-
ond degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section B
304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This
is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment pro-
vided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided
for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is pun-
ishable under the second part of Section 304. c
13. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'cul-
pable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the
Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the
true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in
these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute ab- D
. stractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and
application of. these provisions seems to be to keep in focus
the keywo-rds used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and ·
300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreci-
ating the points of distinction between the two offences. E
Section 299 Section 300
A person commits culpable Subject to certain exceptions
homicide if the act by which culpable homicide is murder
the death is caused is done - · if the act by which the death
is caused is done - F
INTENTION
(a) with the intention of caus- ( 1) with the intention of caJJS-
ing death; or ing death; or
(b) with the intention of caus- (2) with the intention of cause G
ing such bodily injury as ing such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death; · the offender knows to be
or likely to cause the death
of the person to -whom
the harm is caused; or H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A (3) With the intention of caus-
ing bodily injury to any
person and the bodily in-
jury intended to be inflicted
is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause
B
death; or ~·
KNOWLEDGE
(c) with the knowledge that 4) with the knowledge that
the act is likely to cause the act is so imminently
c death. dangerous that it must in
all probability cause death
or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and
without any excuse for in-
D curring the risk of caus-
ing death or such injury
as is mentioned above.
14. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses
(2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the
E mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed ·
by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a
peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused
to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such
harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to
F cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is note-
worthy that the 'intention to cause death' is not an essential re- ~·
quirement of clause (2). Only the intention of causin.g the bodily
injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of
such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is suffi-
G cient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This as-
pect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to
Section 300.
15. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such
knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases fall-
H ing under clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the assailant
BUDHI LAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1023
~
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
causes death by a fist blow intentionally given knowing that the A
victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or
diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that
particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen
or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant
-~ had no such knowledge about the disease or special frailty of B
the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury suffi-
cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the of-
fence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the
death, was intentionally given. In clause (3) of Section 300, in-·
stead of the words 'likely to cause death' occurring in the corre- c
spending clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature" have been used. Obviously, the dis-
tinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a
bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. The distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, m<i!Y
D
result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause
(b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the
degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily
injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of
death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the
gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in clause E
(b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distin-
guished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily
injury....... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the
'~ injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature. F
16. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary
that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death
ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Rajwant and Anr.
G
v. State of Kera/a, (AIR 1966 SC 1874) is an apt illustration of
this point.
17. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1958 SC 465),
Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court, explained the meaning
and scope of clause (3). It was observed that the prosecution H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under
Section 300, "thirdly". First, it must establish quite objectively,
that a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of the injury
must be proved. These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict
B that particular injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or
unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the en-
quiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must be proved that the
injury of the type just described made up of the three elements
c set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and infer-
ential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
18. The ingredients of clause "Thirdly" of Section 300, IPC
were brought out by the illustrious Judge in his terse language
D as follows:
"To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following
facts before it can bring a case under Section 300, "thirdly".
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury
E is present.
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These
are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to
F inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say that it was
not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of
injury was intended.
Once t~ese three elements are proved to be present, the
enquiry proceeds further and,
G
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just
described made up of the three elements set out above
is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferentiat
and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."
H
BUDHI LAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1025
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
19. The learned Judge explained the third ingredient in A
the following words (at page 468):
"The questio'n is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict
a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to
inflict the injury ttiat is proved to be present. If he can show
that he did not, or ifthe totality of theccircumstances justify · 8
such an inference, then of course, the intentthat the section
requires is not proved. But if there is nothing beyond the
injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only
possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whetti13r
he knew of its seriousness or intended serious C
consequences, is neither here or there, The question, so
far as the intention is concerned, is not whether he intended.
to kill, or to inflict an injury_ -0f -a particular degree of
. seriousness but whether.he intended to.inflict the injury in
question and once the existence of the injury is proved the D
intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence
or the circumstanc_es warrant an opposite conclusion."
· 20. These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become
-locus classicus. The test laid· down by Virsa Singh's- case (su- . E
·pra) fo.r the applicability of clause "Thirdly'' is now ingrained in our
legal system and has become part of the rule of law. Under clause .
thir~ly of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is murder, ff both
the following conditions are satisfied: J.e. (a) ttiat the act.which
causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is . .
a
- done with the intention of causing bodily injury; and (b) that the· f
...Jnjuryintendedto be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an inten-
tion to inflict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course
of nature, was sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury found
to be present was the injury that was intended to be_ inflicted. G
21. Thus, according to the cule laid down in Virsa Singh's
case (supra), even ifthe intentipn of accused was limited to the
infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordi-
nary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of caus- H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A ing death, the offence would be murder. Illustration (c) appended
to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.
22. Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section
300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act caus-
ing death. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to
B dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding
clauses. It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section 300
would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to
the probability of death of a person or persons in general as
distinguished from a particular person or persons - being
C caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a
practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender
must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been
committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
D
23. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron
imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the
task of the Court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined
and the second and the third stages so telescopeq into each
other that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment
E to the matters involved in the second and third stages.
24. The position was illuminatingly highlighted by this Court
in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr.
(1976 (4) SCC 382), Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and
F Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (JT 2002 (6) SC 274), Augus-
tine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka (2003 (10) SCC 472),
Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005 (9) SCC 650) and
Sunder Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2007 (10) SCC 371 ).
25. Considering the factual scenario and the manner of as-
G sault, as alleged by the prosecution, in our considered view, the
appropriate conviction shall be under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice.
26. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
H N.J. Appeal partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search