SINGAPAGU ANJAIAHversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                   (2010] 7 S.C.R. 703


                  SINGAPAGU ANJAIAH                            A
                            v.
             STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2010)
                       JULY 6, 2010
                                                               B
         [G.S. SINGHVI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.)

     Penal Code, 1860 - s.302,.... Death due to assault on
head with a crow bar - Conviction of accused-appellant u/
s. 302 - Justification of - Held: Justified - Appellant chose C
crow bar as the weapon of offence - He further chose a vital
part of the body i.e. head for causing the injury which had
caused multiple fractures of skull - This clearly shows the-
force with which appellant had used the weapon - The
cumulative effect of all these factors irresistibly lead to the D
conclusion that appellant intended to cause death of the
victim.

      Eight accused including the appellant were put on
trial for the offences of rioting, attempt to commit murder,   E
murder and causing hurt. The offences were allegedly
committed by the accused persons in view of their
previous enmity with the prosecution party.

    According to the prosecution, while PWs 1 to 5
sustained various injuries on their person, one person         F
died when appellant-accused hit him with a crow bar on
his head. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, death
had occurred due to laceration over the vertex of the
scalp and multiple skull fractures.
                                                               G
   The trial Court sentenced all the accused for offence
under Section 3021149. However, on appeal, the
conviction of all the accused except the appellant under
Section 302/149 IPC was set aside by the High Court.
                            703                                H
    704      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A Hence the present appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: In the present case, all the injured witnesses
  namely PWs 1 to 5 have consistently stated that the
B appellant assaulted the deceased with a crow bar on his
  head. As nobody can enter into the mind of the accused,
  its intention has to be gathered from the weapon used,
  the part.of the body chosen for the assault and the nature
  of the injuries caused. Here, the appellant had chosen a
C crow bar as the weapon of offence. He has further
  chosen a vital part of the body i.e. head for causing the
  injury which had caused multiple fractures of skull. This
  clearly shows the force with which the appellant had used
  the weapon. The cumulative effect of all these factors
D irresistibly lead to one and the only conclusion that the
  appellant intended to cause death of the deceased.
  [Paras 15, 16] [709-G-H; 710-A-C]

      Gurmai/ Singh & others v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC
E 185; Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342 and
  Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635,
    distinguished.
                        Case Law Reference:

F         (1982) 3 sec 185      distinguished        Para 10
          (1983) 2 sec 342      distinguished        Para 11
          (2009) 15 sec 635     distinguished        Para 12
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
G No. 1166 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 31.3.2008 of the High
    Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl.
    Appeal No. 611 of 2006.
H
     SINGAPAGU ANJAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA                     705
                  PRADESH
    A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Anu Gupta, Gouri K. Das, Rani              A
Jethmalani for the Appellant.

     D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                      B
     C.K. PRASAD, J. 1. The sole petitioner, aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Division
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal
No.611 of 2006 affirming the judgment and order dated
6.4.2006 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast             C
Track Court}, Mahabubnagar in Sessions Case No. 175 of
2003, has preferred this petition for grant of special leave to
appeal.

      2. Leave granted.
                                                                      D
      3. Altogether eight persons, including the appellant were
 put on trial for various offences punishable under Section 148,
 307/149, 302, 302/149 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

       4. The appellant, in particular, was charged for offences      E
  of rioting, attempt to commit murder of S. Ramulu (PW.1 ),
  murder of S. Ramalingam and causing hurt to S. Ramchandriah
  (PW.5), punishable under Section 148, 307, 302 and 324 of
  the Indian Penal Code respectively. The trial court acquitted all
. the accused persons for the offence under Section 307/149 of        F
  the Indian Penal Code but sentenced all of them for offence
  under Section 148, 324/149 and 302/149 and sentenced them
  to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section
  302/149 and rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the
  offence under Section 148 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal           G
  Code. On appeal, conviction of all the accused except the
  appellant under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code was
  set aside. However, the conviction of other accused under other
  offences have been maintained to which we are not concerned
  in this appeal. Appellant's conviction and sentence under
                                                                      H
    706      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 7 S.C.R ..


A   Sections 148, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been
    maintained.

        5. Sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the
    order of conviction and sentence.

B      6. According to the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 5 and accused
  persons are close relatives and they are residents of village
  Tirumalairi. There was a dispute between the prosecution party
  and the accused persons over a pathway for which an
  altercation took place earlier between them and a case bearing
C Crime No.15 of 1997 was registered at the Police Station
  Balanagar under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. S.
  Ramulu (PW.1) and his brothers were prosecuted in the said
  case and ultimately they were found guilty and sentenced to pay
  a fine of Rs.100/-. According to the prosecution, accused
o persons were annoyed on account of their conviction and
  waiting for an opportunity to take revenge.

        7. According to the prosecution, on 9.7.2002 at 7 A.M., S.
  Ramulu (PW.1 )was on way to his newly constructed house
  situated at the end of the village. He noticed one of the accused
E and two other persons at the house of S. Thirumalaiah (PW.6).
  One of the persons at the house of PW.6 was Bichya Naik who
  happened to be the Chairman of Watershed Committee. One
  of the accused and said Bichya Naik requested PW.6 to
  provide chairs for the school to which S. Ramulu (PW.1) replied
F that the chairs purchased by the Sarpanch could be spared for
  the purpose. The said accused did not like that and abused
  PW.1 for which the later admonished him. At this, according
  to the prosecution, the said accused assaulted PW.1. In the
  meanwhile, according to the prosecution, the appellant herein
G came from behind, held his head and threw him down.

        8. According to the prosecution, accused persons
  assaulted S. Ramulu (PW.1), S. Narsimha (PW.2), S. Nagaiah
  (PW.3), S. Anjaiah (PW.4) and S. Ramchandriah (PW.5, )and
H all of them have sustained various injuries on their person. The
    SINGAPAGU ANJAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA                     707
          PRADESH [C.K. PRASAD, J.]
present appellant, according to these injured persons, hit the       A
deceased with a crow bar at his head causing serious injury.
A report of the incident was given by PW.1-S.Ramula to PW.11-
Rajender Kulkarni, the Station House Officer of Balanagar
Police Station and on that basis, crime no. 147 of 2002 was
registered. Rajender Kulkarni, Sub-Inspector of Police sent all      B
the injured to the Government Hospital, Shadnagar but
Ramalingam succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital.
All the injured witnesses, namely PW.1 to PW.5 were examined
by Dr. Govind Waghmare (PW.9), Civil Assistant Surgeon who
found several injuries on person of each of those witnesses.         c
Dr. Govind Waghmare (PW.9) also held autopsy on the dead
body of the deceased S. Ramalingam and he found presence
of bleeding from left ear and laceration into bone deep over
the vertex in the scalp. He further found multiple skull fractures
on the person of the deceased and in his opinion, the death
                                                                     0
was caused due to the haematoma of th~ brain and multiple
skull fractures.

     9. The. police, after usual investigations, submitted the
charge-sheet and all the accused persons including the
appellant were put on trial. They denied to have committed the       E.
offence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of
its case, examined altogether 12 witnesses besides various
documentary evidences were produced. The Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court relying on the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellant         F
as above.

      10. Shri A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that even
if the case of the prosecution is accepted in its entirety, no       G
offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made
out. According to him, the allegation proved utmost makes out
the case under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code
and accordingly he submitted that conviction under Section 302
be altered to that of 304 Part II and appellant be sentenced to
                                                                     H
    708       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A the period already undergone by him. In support of the
    submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court
    in the case of Gurmail Singh & others vs. State of Punjab
    (1982) 3 sec 185 and our attention has been drawn to the
    following passage from para 7 of the judgment :
B
               "7 ...... We are of the opinion that in the facts found
          by the High court, it could not be said that accused 1
          Gurmail Singh intended to cause that particular bodily
          injury which in fact was found to have been caused. May
          be, the injury inflicted may have been found to be sufficient
c         in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. What ought
          to be found is that the injury found to be present was the
          injury that was intended to be inflicted. It is difficult to say
          with confidence in the present case keeping in view the
          facts found by the High court that accused 1 Gurmail Singh
D         intended to cause that very injury which was found to be
          fatal."

         11. Reliance has also been placed a decision of this Court
    in Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342 and
E   our attention was drawn to para 8 of the judgment which reads
    as follows:

                 "8. The next question is what offence the appellant
          is shown to have committed? In a trivial quarrel the
          appellant wielded a weapon like a knife. The incident
F         occurred around 1.45 noon. The quarrel was of a trivial
          nature and even in such a trivial quarrel the appellant
          wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow in the
          chest. In these circumstances, it is a permissible inference
          that the appellant at least could be imputed with a
G         knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was
          likely to cause death. Therefore, the appellant is shown to
          have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II of
          the IPC and a sentence of imprisonment for five year will
          meet the ends of justice."
H
    SINGAPAGU ANJAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA                    709
          PRADESH [C.K. PRASAD, J.]
     12. Yet another decision relied on is in the case of           A
Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635 and
our attention was drawn to para 21 and 22 of the judgment which
read as follows :

            "21. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken      B
    place on the spur of the moment. Only the appellant
    Gurmukh Singh inflicted a single lathi-blow. The other
    accused have not indulged in any overt act. There was no
    intention or premeditation in the mfnd of the appellant to
    inflict such injuries to the deceased as were likely to cause   C
    death in the ordinary course of nature. On consideration
    of the entire evidence including the medical evidence, we
    are clearly of the view that the conviction of the appellant
    cannot be sustained under Section 302 IPC, but the
    appropriate section under which the appellant ought to be
    convicted is Section 304 Part II IPC.                           D

    22. Before we part with the case, we would like to clearly
    observe that we are not laying down that in no case of
    single blow .or injury, tt1e accused cannot be convicted
    under Section 302 IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts     E
    and circumstances of each case have to be taken into
    consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the
    accused should be appropriately convicted under Section
    302 IPC or under Section 304 Part II IPC."
                                                                    F
    13. Smt. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appeared on
behalf of the State.

      14. We do not find any substance in the submission of Shri
Ramanujam and the decisions relied on are clearly
distinguishable.                                                    G

     15. In view of the submissions made, we do not deem it
expedient to narrate the entire evidence on record. Suffice it
to say that all the injured witnesses namely P.W. 1 to 5 have
consistently stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased
                                                                    H
    710       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A   with a crow bar on his head. According to the autopsy surgeon,
    Dr. Govind Waghmare, death had occurred due to laceration
    over the vertex of the scalp and multiple skull fractures.

        16. In our opinion, as nobody can enter into the mind of
B the accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon
  used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature
  of the injuries caused. Here, the appellant had chosen a crow
  bar as the weapon of offence. He has further chosen a vital part
  of the body i.e. head for causing the injury which had caused
C multiple fractures of skull. This clearly shows the force with which
  the appellant had used the weapon. The cumulative effect of
  all these factors irresistibly lead to one and the only conclusion
  that the appellant intended to cause death of the deceased.

       17. Now referring to the decision of this Court in the case
D of Gurmail Singh (Supra), the same is clearly distinguishable.
  In the said case, on fact, it was found that the accused did not
  intend to cause the injury which in fact was found to have been
  caused and in the said background, it was held that the
  accused did not intend to cause death, which is not the situation
E here.

         18. In the case of Jagtar Singh (Supra), the incident was
    preceded by a sudden and chance quarrel and in that
    background, the Court held the allegation proved to be under
    Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
F
       19. In the case of Gurmukh Singh (Supra), the injury found
  on the deceased was only depression of skull bone and the
  occurrence had taken place in the spur of the moment. In the
  background of the aforesaid facts, infliction of single lathi blow
G was not found enough to infer the intention of the accused to
  cause death of the deceased. Here, as pointed out above, the
  three important factors enumerated above, clearly lead to the
  conclusion that appellant intended to cause death.

          20. Hence, all these decisions are clearly distinguishable.
H
    SINGAPAGU ANJAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA                    711
          PRADESH [C.K. PRASAD, J.]
     21. In the present case, as pointed out above, weapon         A
used, the part of the body chosen for assault and the intensity
with which the appellant assaulted the deceased clearly go to
show that he intended to cause the death of the deceased.

    22. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed   B
accordingly.

B.B.B                                      Appeal dismissed.