LITTA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                      [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1118


A                       LITTA SINGH & ANR.
                                   v.
                      STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2009)
                           APRIL 26, 2013
B
             [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

        PENAL CODE, 1860:

c         s.304 (part 11)134 - Accused causing injuries to victim -
    Death of victim the following day - Conviction uls 302134 and
    sentence of life imprisonment, affirmed by High Court - Held:
    The instant case falls uls 304 (part II) - Although appellants
    had no intention to cause death but it can safely be inferred
    that they knew that such bodily injury was likely to cause death
0
    - Therefore, appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not
    amounting to murder - Accordingly judgments of courts below
    are modified and conviction u/s 302 is converted to 304(part-
    I/) - Appellants are sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

E       WORDS AND PHRASES:

        Expression, 'maro maro' - Connotation of.

       The appellants along with their father were
  prosecuted for causing death of the brother of PW1. The
F prosecution case was that two days prior to the incident
  a quarrel took place between the deceased and the father
  of the appellants. On the date of incident at about 7 p.m.
  the appellants and their father assaulted the deceased
  with sticks and 'gandasi'. He succumbed to his injuries
G the following day in the hospital. The trial court convicted
  both the appellants u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced them
  to imprisonment for life. Their father was acquitted giving
  him benefit of doubt. The High Court affirmed the
  conviction and the sentence.
H                            1118
  LITIA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN              1119

    Disposing of the appeal, the Court                          A
      HELD: 1.1 There is no evidence from the side of the
prosecution that the accused persons pre-planned to
cause death and with that intention they were waiting for
the deceased coming from the field and then with an             B
intention to kill the deceased they assaulted him. The
trial court noticed the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 who
alleged to have heard the noise "MARO MARO", which
can only mean to beat or to cause assault and not 'to kill'.
The High Court has wrongly mentioned the term as 'kill'.        C
However, considering the nature of the injury caused to
the deceased and the weapons i.e. 'lathi' and 'gandasi'
(sickle) used by them, it cannot be ruled out that they
assaulted the deceased with the knowledge that the
injury may cause death. [paras 13 and 16 -17] [1129-C;
1131-A-B, D-E]                                                  D
     1.2 It is well settled proposition of law that the
intention to cause death with the knowledge that the
death will probably be caused, is very important
consideration for coming to the conclusion that death is        E
indeed a murder with intention to cause death or the
knowledge that death will probably be caused. From the
testimonies of the witnesses, it does not reveal that the
accused persons intended to cause death and with that
intention they started inflicting injuries on the body of the   F
deceased. Even more important aspect is that while they
were beating the deceased the witnesses reached the
place and shouted whereupon the accused persons
immediately ran away instead of inflicting more injuries
with intent to kill the deceased. [para 18] [1131-F-G]
                                                                G
    Gurdip Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC
14 relied on.

    1.3 In the instant case, after analyzing the entire
evidence, it becomes evidently clear that the occurrence        H
    1120    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A took place suddenly and there was no premeditation on
  the part of the appellants. There is no evidence that the
  appellants made special preparation for assaulting the
  deceased with the intent to kill him. There is no dispute
  that the appellants assaulted deceased in such a manner
B that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which was
  sufficient to cause death, but this Court is convinced that
  the injury was not intended by the appellants to kill the
  deceased. [para 20] [1133-C-E]
        1.4 In the considered opinion of the Court the instant
C case falls u/s 304 (part II) IPC. Although the appellants
  had no intention to cause death but it can safely be
  inferred that they knew that such bodily injury was likely
  to cause death. Therefore, the appellants are guilty of
  culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
D Accordingly, the judgments of the courts below are
  modified and the conviction u/s 302 is converted to 304
  (part-II) IPC. The appellants are sentenced to ten years'
  imprisonment. [paras 21-22] [1133-E-G]

E        lshwar Singh vs. State of U.P., (1976) 4 SCC 355 and
    State of U.P. vs. Madan Mohan & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1519 -
    cited.
                        Case Law Reference:
F       (1976) 4 sec 355        cited               para 10
        1989 AIR 1519           cited               para 10
        1987 (2)   sec 14       referred to         para 19
G       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 805 of 2009. ·

        From the Judgment and order dated 08.05.2008 of the
    High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.
    Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2002.
H
   LITTA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN               1121

      Sushil Kr. Jain, Puneet Jain, Anurag Gohil, Pratibha Jain   A
for the Appellants.
     Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Amit Lubhaya, Milind Kumar for
the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    B

     M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The present appeal by special leave
arises out of the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2008 of
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2002 whereby the appeal of the         c
appellants herein was dismissed upholding the judgment and
order dated 23rd January, 2002 of the Additional Sessions
Judge in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2001 whereby the
appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and
sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rupees one       D
thousand each and in default in payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each in addition.
    2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Kalla
Singh was granted bail by this Court on 3rd February, 2010.
                                                                  E
     3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that
complainant Baltej Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report on
7th February, 2001 (Ex.P/1) in the police station Sadulshahar
upon which FIR (Ex. P/17) was drawn and a case under Section
307, 341, 323/34 was registered. It is alleged in the said report F
Ex.P/1 that to pass time the villagers and complainant and his
family members used to sit near the fire during the time of
winter and cold in front of house of Mukund Singh. Boga Singh,
co-accused was not liking sitting of brother of complainant
Hansraj Singh and, therefore, two days before the date of G
incident quarrel took place between Hansraj Singh and Boga .
Singh. On 7th February, 2001 at about 7.00 p.m., hearing the
voice MARO MARO coming from the side of lane in front of
the house of Mukund Singh, the· complainant, Yadvinder Singh,
Mukund Singh and Gurjant Singh ran towards the place from H
    1122    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A where the voice was coming. There they saw that accused
  Boga Singh and his two sons Litta Singh and Kalla Singh
  {appellants herein) were beating Hansraj Singh with lathis and
  gandasi. Kalla Singh had gandasi with him who inflicted injury
  by gandasi on the head of Hansraj Singh and others gave
B beating by lathis. The complainant, Mukund Singh, Yadvinder
  Singh and Gurjant Singh shouted upon which the accused ran
  away. The complainant took the victim to the hospital and got
  him admitted. He lodged report Ex. P/1 in the police station
  Sadulshahar at 10.00 p.m. on the basis of which FIR No. 29/
c 2001 {Ex. P/17) was registered under Sections 307, 341, 323/
  34 IPC. The victim died on 8th February, 2001 during treatment
  in the hospital on which Section 302 IPC was added. During
  investigation, site was inspected on 8th February, 2001 and
  blood soil and sample soil were collected. All the three
  accused were arrested. The weapons of offence were also
D recovered. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science
  Laboratory {FSL) for report. After recording the statements of
  the witnesses and obtaining opinion of the FSL {report Ex.Pl
  24) and post mortem report {Ex.P/14), the challan was filed
  against the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. The
E accused denied the charges and sought trial. In support of its
  case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses out
  of whom PW-1 Baljet Singh, PW-2 Yadvinder Singh and PW-
  3 Mukund Singh are stated to be eye-witnesses, PW-6 Dr. B.B.
  Gupta & PW-7 Dr. Manish Ahuja are witnesses regarding
F treatment of the deceased and post mortem report, PW-8
  Chandra Prakash Parick as Investigating Officer and the other
  witnesses i.e. PW-4 Sewa Singh, PW-5 Lakharam & PW-9
  Haranarayan are witnesses to prove the recovery/seizure of the
  articles and sending them to the FSL. Each of the accused
G denied the incriminating circumstances put to them and stated
  that they have been falsely implicated. The accused Boga
  Singh took further stand that the deceased Hansraj Singh had
  illicit relation with wife of Gurjant Singh and the same being
  objected by him he has been wrongly implicated in the case of
H
   LITTA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                1123
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
murder. However, none of the accused led any evidence in            A
defence.
    4. The following injuries were found on the body of the
deceased on performing post mortem:
     1. Incised wound 4 cm x 1/5 cm x bone deep was on left         B
    forearm. The bones of lower side were fractured.
    2. Incised wound 20 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep was on the
    right forearm.
    3. Abrasion 5 cm x 1/8 cm on right shoulder.
                                                                    c
    4. Abrasion 5 cm x 1/8 cm on right shoulder.
    5. Abrasion 7 cm x Yz cm was present on the waist.
                                                                    D
    6. Abrasion 7 cm x Yz cm was present on the waist.
    7. Cyanosed mark with swelling. There was 8 cm
    abrasion within the injury on left temple which 1 cm x 1 cm
    on central part.
                                                                    E
     8. Cyanosed and swelled 7 cm x 7 cm on right temple 1
     cm x 1 cm abrasion was present inside the same injury.
    9. Cyanosed and swelled 6 cm x 8 cm clotted blood was
    present under the skin on cutting back side of head which       F
    was extending from injury No. 7 upto the lower part of injury
    No. 9. On cutting the bone blood had coagulated which
    duramatter was in the brain which was in the left parietal
    region, occipital region and right tempo-parietal region.
     10. Cyanosed 10 cm x 1 cm on right knee.                       G

      5. According to the doctor (PW-6), all the injuries were
ante mortem and the deceased died due to shock and coma
arising out of head injury Nos. 7, 8 and 9. 1.njury Nos. 7 and 8
was the cause of death in ordinary course of nature.
                                                                    H
    1124     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A        6. The trial court on the basis of statement of PW-6 made
    on the basis of post mortem report (Ex.P/14) held that the death
    of deceased Hansraj Singh was homicidal. As regards
    credibility of the testimony of eye-witnesses (PW-1, PW-2. and
     PW-3), the trial court observed (in para 18) that it may be true
B   that the place where all these three witnesses were standing
    seeing the accused directly from there is not at all possible but
    their statement is that they heard the call MARO MARO and
    then they rushed there; there may be exaggeration in the
    statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding seeing the accused
c   because both of them are Glose relatives of the deceased and
    they have made statement of seeing the accused directly that
    they wanted to give conclusive evidence on this point that they
    saw accused while assaulting from the very beginning but on
    the basis of their statement that they have seen the accused
    from that place where they were standing, on this basis it cannot
0
    be agreed that they did not hear the call MARO MARO; and
    since there was a call of MARO MARO, therefore all these
    three witnesses rushed there and they saw that the accused
    were assaulting the deceased Hansraj Singh, cannot be
    disbelieved. As regards discrepancies and shortcomings in
E   the statements, the trial court held (in para 19) that on this
    ground the entire prosecution case cannot be treated untrue
    because there is no such case in which such discrepancies of
    general nature do not exist and the court has to see that how
    much prosecution evidence is reliable in respect of chief
F   statement of the occurrence. On the argument that PW-1 and
    PW-2 being close·relatives of the deceased their statements
    cannot be believed, the trial court did not accept the same
    observing that their arrival at the spot of occurrence was natural
    because they made statement of reaching the place of
G   occurrence on hearing the call of MARO MARO and the place
    of occurrence is not very far from their house. On the argument
    that Gurjant Singh being the eye-witness has not been examined
    by the prosecution, the trial court held that it is for the
    prosecution as to .which witnes~es are to be examined and
H   when the same fact is proved through reliable witness then for
   LITTA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                  11125
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
corroboration of it on the same point by getting examined m9re            A
than on~ witnesses is not required.

     7. Ultimately, the trial court held that the accused Litta
Singh and Kalla Singh caused fatal injuries to the deceased
Hansraj Singh by assaulting him with sickle (gandasi) and lathi
                                                                          B
with the motive of causing his death as a result of which he died
but the fact of any participation of accused Boga Singh in the
said offence is not found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
and therefore, giving benefit of the doubt accused Boga Singh
was acquitted. The appellants herein were convicted under                 C
Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced as stated above.

     8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the
appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High
Court after analyzing the facts of the case and re-appreciating
the testimonies of the witnesses, affinned the findings recorded          D
by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal
by special leave.

     9. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellants
assailed the impugned judgment and order of conviction as
                                                                          E
being contrary .to the facts and evidence on record. Learned
counsel firstly submitted that the courts below have erred in
placing reliance on the statements of the PW-1 Baltej Singh,
PW-2 Yadvinder Singh, PW-3 Mukund Singh, who were ex
facie interested witnesses inasmuch as PW-1 and PW-2 are
brother and son of the deceased and Mukund Singh was                      F
inimical towards the appellants. Learned counsel submitted that
since the statements of these witnesses had been disbelieved
qua Boga Singh, the High Court has gravely erred in placing
reliance on the statements of these witnesses without any
corroboration by independent witnesses. Learned counsel drew              G
our attention to the judgment onhe trial court and.submitted that
the High Court ought to have considered the fi!idings recorded
by the trial court in para 22 of the judgment. Para 22 of the trial
court judgment reads as under:-
                                                                          H
                                                                              I


                                                                      ;
    1126   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A       "As far as there is the question of the accused Boga Singh
        though statements are also against him similar to PW.1,
        PW.2 and PW.3 that he also beat the deceased with lathi
        but our opinion in this regard is that PW.1 and PW.2 have
        made statements regarding the accused Boga Singh that
B       accused Boga Singh raised the call of MARO MARO but
        in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all these
       three there is no such statement that who gave a call of
        MARO MARO was the accused Boga Singh. It is revealed
       from this that the statement made by PW.1 and PW.2
c      regarding giving a call of MARO MARO by accused Boga
       Singh has been made for ensuring that accused Boga
       Singh be also fully included in this case. PW.3 Mukand
       Singh does not make such statement in his statement in
       the court that accused Boga Singh raised a call of MARO
       MARO and it was natural for him that he only heard the call
D
       did not see the accused because at that time he was
       feeding bread to the dogs in front of his house. PW.1 and
       PW.2 have made this excess statement in the court
       regarding Boga Singh due to which doubt is created that
       whether in fact call of MARO MARO was made by Boga
E      Singh only because the place where these people were
       standing and in the time of occurrence it was not possible
       to see for them that the call was given by him. In addition
       to this there was no blood on the lathi which accused Boga
       Singh got recovered on his information. Therefore, this
F      also creates doubt that the lathi which was seized was
       used in causing injuries to the deceased. There is one
       more practical fact that when his two young sons in which
       the age of accused Kala Singh is 20 years and accused
       Leeta Singh is 25 years old as has been told by them in
G      their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and both have
       sufficient capacity of causing injuries to the deceased then
       this accused was having the necessity that he also cause
       injuries to the deceased. His presence may be at the spot
       of occurrence because the manner in which PW.1, PW.2
H      and PW.3 came on hearing MARO MARO then he may
   LITTA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                1127
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
     have also come there but neither he gave a call of MARO        A
     MARO and instigated both his sons in any manner and nor
     he took any part in causing injuries to the deceased.
     Therefore, the statements of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3
     concerning him cannot be believed and giving benefit of
     doubt to him is justified."                                    B

       1O. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation in the
.FIR made against all the three accused persons and the
 evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be segregated.
 Since one of the accused Boga Singh has been acquitted, then
 there is no reason why the appellants may not be acquitted from    C
 the charges. Learned counsel further submitted that the
 genesis of the incident has not been established as to which
 injuries were fatal. Learned counsel referred the decisions of
 this Court in the case of lshwar Singh vs. State of U.P., (1976)
 4 SCC 355 and State of U.P. vs. Madan Mohan & Ors., AIR            D
 1989 SC 1519. Learned counsel submitted that the non-
 examination of Gurjant Singh and the persons of the locality is
 fatal in the instant case as no explanation has been given for
 their non-examination. Lastly, learned counsel made an
 alternative argument and submitted that there was no common        E
 intention of the appellants to kill the victim. It may be that
 because of some dispute and quarrel between the appellants
 and the victim, the appellants might have tried to teach lesson
 to the victim and in that they have allegedly inflicted injuries
 which have caused the death of the victim. And in the said         F
 premises, the conviction of the appellant may be altered from
 Section 302 IPC to Section 304Part11 IPC or at the most under
 Section 304 Part-I IPC.

     11. On the other hand, Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel
appearing for the prosecution side submitted that there are         G
direct evidence in the form of eye-witnesses, namely, PW-2 and
PW-3. Learned counsel submitted that the weapons used by
the appellants were recovered and blood found on the said
weapons. Learned counsel submitted that the head injuries i.e.
                                                                    H
    1128     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   injury Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are independently sufficient to cause the
    death. Learned counsel submitted that Gurjant Singh may not
    be called as best witness but one of the witnesses. Since the
    evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 was sufficient to establish the case,
    non-examination of Gurjant Singh is not in any way fatal to the
8   prosecution side.

          12. We have carefully examined the evidence adduced by
    the prosecution and also the complaint lodged by the .
    complainant on the basis of which the case was registered
    against the appellant Boga Singh who has been acquitted in
C   the case. Much stress and emphasis has been given to the
    word "MARO MARO" coming from the side of lane in front of
    the house of Mukund Singh. Hearing the voice, the accused
    person alleged to have run towards the place and saw that the
    accused Boga Singh and his two sons Litta Singh and Kalla
D   Singh were beating the deceased with lathi and gandasi. In
    the FIR (English translation of the same has been annexed as
    Annexure P-1), it appears that the informant alleged that when
    he along with two others ran in front of the house of Mukund
    Singh, a loud voice "MARO MARO" was heard. On hearing the
E   turmoil, the complainant and PWs 2 and 3 rushed and saw that
    the accused persons were assaulting the deceased. When
    the complainant and PWs 2 and 3 raised commotion, then the
    accused persons ran away. PW-1, who is the complainant, in
    his evidence, has deposed otherwise. According to his
F   evidence, there was hue and cry, Boga Singh was saying "KILL
    KILL". Hearing the hue and cry, he went running there and saw
    that the accused persons were beating the deceased. PW-2
    Yadvinder Singh in his deposition has said that on hearing the
    sound of "MARO MA~O" he saw that Boga Singh was saying
G   "MARO MARO", then they went there and saw that three
    accused persons were beating his father. When they reached
    nearby, then these persons fled away. PW-3 Mukund Singh
    has said that the incident was of about six months before. While
    he was feeding bread to the ~ogs, then sound of "MARO
H

                                                                  ,'
   LITTA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                 1129
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
MARO" reached. He reached there running and saw that the             A
accused persons were beating Hansraj Singh.

     13. The trial court proceeded on the basis of written report
(Ex. P/1) submitted in the police station wherein the allegation
was that the deceased while coming home from the field at            8
about 7 O'clock and when he reached in the lane in front of the
house of Mukund Singh a loud voice "MARO MARO" was
heard. In the judgment, the word "MARO MARO" was
described as "MAR DO MAR DO". The trial court further
noticed the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 who alleged to have
heard the noise "MARO MARO". The trial court recorded its            C
opinion which is quoted hereinbelow:-

    " ....... My opinion in this regard is that it may be true the
    place where all these three witnesses were standing
     seeing the accused from there is not at all possible            D
    because the occurrence is about quarter to seven - seven
    O'clock evening on 7th February 2001 and on this day sun
    sets at almost 6% O'clock and the dark after half an hour
     after sun set is that much in which it is not possible to see
    the accused directly but their statement is that they heard      E
    the call MARO MARO then they rushed there. There may
    be exaggeration in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2
    regarding seeing the accused because both of them are
    close relatives of the deceased and they have · made
    statement of seeing the accused directly that they wanted        F
    to give conclusive evidence on this point that they saw
    accused while assaulting from the very beginning but on
    the basis of their statement that they have seen the accused
    from that place where they were standing, on this basis it
    cannot be agreed that they did not hear the call of MARO         G
    MARO. The statement of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 that they
    had gone there on hearing MARO MARO and among
    them the statement of PW.1 and PW.2 is certain that
    Banga Singh was giving a call of MARO MARO but in it
    their evidence may be doubtful that in fact Bonga Singh          H
    1130    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A       made a call of MARO MARO but since there was a call of
        MARO MARO therefore all these three witnesses rushed
        there and they saw that the accused were assaulting
        deceased Hansraj Singh. The place of all these witnesses
        is though not very far from the place of occurrence hence,
B       their going to the place of occurrence on hearing the
        sound of MARO MARO and having gone there evidence
        of seeing the accused assaulting Hansraj Singh cannot be
        disbelieved. Though the Advocate for the accused have
        given the argument in their arguments that the
c       Investigation Officer has not shown that place wherefrom.
       ·they were seeing the accused by standing but it does not
        have any adverse effect because it was necessary for the
        Investigation Officer that he would show the spot of
        occurrence and the place in the vicinity not that place
        wherefrom any witness may have seen occurrence. Had
D
        all the three witnesses would have made the statement of
        not going at the place of occurrence on hearing the sound
        of MARO MARO and would have made the statement of
        seeing the occurrence standing only at that place then this
        argument was having the importance that how they had
E       seen the occurrence while standing at the place where they
        were standing. When they reached the place of
        occurrence on hearing the call then the state of their being
        standing or place becomes secondary. Therefore, the
        argument given by the learned Advocate for the accused
F       does not have any force."

          14. However, with regard to the accused Boga Singh, the
    trial court recorded the reasoning in para 22 of the judgment
    while acquitting him.
G
       15. Curiously enough, the High Court while narrating the
  incident as contained in Ex. P/1, has wrongly mentioned that
  the witnesses have heard the voice "KILL KILL" and hearing
  the shout, the witnesses reached the spot and saw the accused
H persons beating the deceased.
   LITTA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                   1131
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
     16. The word "MARO MARO" can never mean "KILL                     A
KILL". The word "KILL" means to cause the death of a person
or animal. It also means to put some one to death, to murder,
to slaughter. On the other hand, the word "MARO MARO"
means to beat, to cause assault. Here the thin line of distinction
lies between the two words. If the voice is "KILL KILL", it            B
means to cause death of the person and to finish him. Had
the intention of the person been to make such call or voice "KILL
KILL" and on the basis of such call the accused persons had
assaulted the deceased, then the intention would have been
clearly to kill and murder the deceased. Here on hearing the           C
call "MARO MARO", the accused persons with Boga Singh
started beating the deceased.
     17. Considering the nature of the injury caused to the
deceased and the weapons i.e. lathi and gandasi (sickle) used
by them, it cannot be ruled out that they assaulted the deceased       o
with the knowledge that the injury may cause death of the
person. Moreover, there is no evidence from the side of the
prosecution that the accused persons pre-planned to cause
death and with that intention they were waiting for the deceased
coming from the field and then with an intention to kill the           E
deceased they assaulted him.
     18. It is well settled proposition of law that the intention to
cause death with the knowledge that the death will probably be
caused, is very important consideration for coming to the
conclusion that death is indeed a murder with intention to cause       F
death or the knowledge that death will probably be caused.
From the testimonies of the witnesses, it does not reveal that
the accused persons intended to cause death and with that
intention they started inflicting injuries on the body of the
deceased. Even more important aspect is that while they were           G
beating the deceased the witnesses reached the place and
shouted whereupon the accused persons immediately ran
away instead of inflicting more injuries with intent to kill the
deceased.
     19. In the case of Gurdip Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab,       H
     1132     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


 A (1987) 2 sec 14, this Court came across a similar type of
   incident, where the prosecution case was that one Maya Bai
    had two sons and two brothers. She was the mother of accused
    Nos. 1 and 2 and sister of accused Nos. 3 and 4. The
   deceased was one Kishore Singh. The accused suspected
 B that Mayabai had illicit relations with the deceased. Hence one
   day when the deceased was returning from village and when
   he reached the field of Kashmiri Lal, the accused came out of
   the wheat field. The first appellant had a kirpan and the second
   appellant had kappa. It was alleged that the four accused took
   deceased on wheat field and threw him on the ground. One
 C of the acquitted accused Jit Singh caught hold of arms of the
   deceased and the two appellants caused injuries with the
   weapons in their hands. There was an alarm created by
   Lachhman Singh, PW-3, which had attracted PW-4 and
   Mohinder Singh. When they reached the spot, the accused ran
 D away with their weapons. The deceased had seven injuries on
   his body. Injury No.7 was fatal according to the doctor, who
   examined him. It was argued that the prosecution had not come
   forward with true case as to how the incident happened. The
   trial Judge found two accused Jit Singh and Teja Singh not
·E guilty, since the case against them was not proved beyond the
   reasonable doubt. The appellants were convicted because they
   had weapons with them unlike the acquitted accused. This
   Court on consideration of the entire evidence did not interfere
   with the findings that the appellants were responsible for the
 F death of the deceased by attacking him with the weapons in
   their hands, but on reappraisal of the entire evidence, the Court
   found it difficult to agree with the trial court that the appellants
   were guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence,
   converting the offence under Section 304 Part I, this Court
 G observed:-
                  "6. The trial Judge was not wholly justified in
         observing that there was no evidence about the so-called
         illicit relationship between Maya Bai and Kishore Singh,
         the deceased. The materials available create
 H       considerable doubt in our mind as to whether the·
   LITTA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                  1133
                 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
       appellants really intended to kill Kishore Singh or whether    A
       his misconduct pushed them to wreak revenge against the
       deceased and in this pursuit attacked him. We are not
       unmindful of the fact that the 7th injury noted in the post-
       mortem certificate is in the ordinary course sufficient to
       cause the death of the deceased. But we are not fully          B
       satisfied that the appellants intended to kill the deceased.
       The correct approach on the evidence and other
       circumstances in this case, would according to us, be to
       find the accused guilty under Section 304 Part I, and to
       sentence them under that section."                             c
     20. After analyzing the entire evidence, it is evidently clear
that the occurrence took place suddenly and there was no
premeditation on the part of the appellants. There is no
evidence that the appellants made special preparation for
assaulting the deceased with the intent to kill him. There is no      D
dispute that the appellants assaulted deceased in such a
manner that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which was
sufficient to cause death, but we are convinced that the injury
was not intended by the appellants to kill the deceased.
     21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our           E
considered opinion, the instant case falls under Section 304
Part II IPC as stated above. Although the appellants had no
intention to cause death but it can safely be inferred that the
appellants knew that such bodily injury was likely to cause death,
hence the appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not              F
amounting to murder and are liable to be punished under
Section 304 Part II IPC.
     22. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the trial court
and the High Court and convert the conviction under Section           G
302 to 304 Part 11 IPC, and sentence the appellants to ten years'
imprisonment. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the
modification in the conviction and sentence as indicated above.
R.P.                                        Appeal disposed of.
                                                                      H