STALINversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                       [2020] 7 S.C.R. 283                          283


                            STALIN                                  A
                                v.
   STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                (Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2020)
                     SEPTEMBER 09, 2020                             B

      [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
                 M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302, s. 304 and Exception IV to s.300
– Appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 IPC – C
Appellant contended that it was a case of single injury, s. 302 IPC
shall not be attracted and the case would fall u/s. 304-Part II IPC –
Held: There is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury
s. 302 IPC would not be attracted – It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case – In the instant case, PW-3 deposed
that when the victim-deceased served extra beer to two persons D
who came from outside, the accused became angry and told the
victim why he was giving more beer to out-town people and not
giving to local people, thereafter problem started and in that scuffle
the accused took out the knife and stabbed from behind – As per
Exception IV to. s.300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is E
committed in a sudden fight in the heat of passion – Considering
the facts and circumstances and the manner in which the incident
started, s.302 IPC shall not be attracted – However, the accused
inflicted blow with a weapon like knife and inflicted the injury on
the victim on vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that such
bodily injury was likely to cause death – Thus, the case would fall F
u/s. 304-Part-I and not u/s. 304-Part II of the IPC.
      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. There is no hard and fast rule that in a case of
single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends
                                                                    G
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of
injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in
causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the
accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of
causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal
application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single H
                               283
284            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 7 S.C.R.


A     blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be
      considered in each case, more particularly, under the
      circumstances narrated hereinabove, the events which precede
      will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the
      death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or
      knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention
B
      to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will
      decide the nature of offence. [Para 7.2][296-D-F]
             2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in various cases,
      more particularly the decisions on the single injury and the facts
      on hand, it is required to be considered whether the case would
C     fall under Section 302 IPC or any other lesser offence. PW3, who
      is an eye-witness to the incident right from the beginning, deposed
      that when the deceased served extra beer to two persons who
      came from outside, the accused became angry and told the
      deceased why he is giving more beer to out-town people and not
D     giving to local people and thereafter the problem started and in
      that scuffle the accused took out the knife and stabbed from
      behind. [Para 9][297-E-F]
             3. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable
      homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation
E     in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
      without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having
      acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the
      place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who
      participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the
      incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. Therefore,
F     in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said
      to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and,
      therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated
      hereinabove and the manner in which the incident started in a
      beer party, this Court of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall
G     not be attracted. [Para 10][297-H; 298-A-B]
            4. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
      of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the
      blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the
      deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that
H
          STALIN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                     285
                 INSPECTOR OF POLICE

causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death.        A
Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the
IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. [Para 11]
[297-C-D]
     Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319;
     Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat             B
     (2003) 9 SCC 322 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 754;
     Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC
     444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633; Singapagu Anjaiah v.
     State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799 : [2010] 7 SCR 703;
     Bavisetti Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2008) 15 SCC
     725 : [2008] 5 SCR 408; Jafel Biswas v. State of West       C
     Bengal (2019) 12 SCC 560 – relied on.
     Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307;
     Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of
     Maharashra (2000) 3 SCC 557 : [2000] 1 SCR 1155;
     Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat             D
     (2003) 9 SCC 322 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 754;
     Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC
     444 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633; Arun Raj v. Union of
     India (2010) 6 SCC 457 : [2010] 7 SCR 1; Singapagu
     Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799 : [2010] 7        E
     SCR 703; Ashokkumar Nagabhai Vankar v. State of
     Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 604; Vijay Ramkrishan
     Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 592;
     Som Raj v. State of H.P. (2013) 14 SCC 246 : [2013] 4
     SCR 433; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalicharan
     (2019) 6 SCC 809; State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram           F
     (2019) 13 SCC 131; Ananta Kamilya v. State of West
     Bengal (2020) 2 SCC 511; Sukhpal Singh v. State of
     Punjab (2019) 15 SCC 622; State of Rajasthan v.
     Kanhaiya Lal (2019) 5 SCC 639 : [2019] 5 SCR 569
     – referred to.                                              G
                     Case Law Reference
(2000) 10 SCC 307            referred to      Para 4.2
[2000] 1 SCR 1155            referred to      Para 4.2
                                                                 H
286           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 7 S.C.R.


A     (2000) 1 SCC 319              relied on          Para 4.2 (i)
      [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 754       relied on          Para 5.1 (ii)
      [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633       relied on          Para 5.1 (iiii)
      [2008] 5 SCR 408              relied on          Para 5.1 (iv)
B     [2010] 7 SCR 1                referred to        Para 5.1 (v)
      [2010] 7 SCR 703              relied on          Para 5.1 (vi)
      (2011) 10 SCC 604             referred to        Para 5.1 (vii)
      (2012) 11 SCC 592             referred to        Para 5.1 (viii)
C
      [2013] 4 SCR 433              referred to        Para 5.1 (ix)
      (2019) 6 SCC 809              referred to        Para 5.1 (x)
      (2019) 13 SCC 131             referred to        Para 5.1 (xi)
      (2020) 2 SCC 511              referred to        Para 5.1 (xii)
D
      (2019) 15 SCC 622             referred to        Para 6
      (2000) 1 SCC 319              referred to        Para 7.1.1
      [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 754       referred to        Para 7.1.2
      [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633       referred to        Para 7.1.3
E
      [2010] 7 SCR 703              referred to        Para 7.1.4
      [2019] 5 SCR 569              referred to        Para 7.1.5
      (2019) 12 SCC 560             relied on          Para 8.1

F           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      No. 577 of 2020.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2017 of the Madurai
      Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. No. 122 of 2016.

G          K. K. Mani, Ms. T. Archana, Advs. for the Appellant.
           M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. for the Respondent.



H
            STALIN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                                   287
                   INSPECTOR OF POLICE

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
       M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Leave granted.
       2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High               B
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 122 of
2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has
confirmed the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed
by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in
Sessions Case No. 354 of 2012, convicting the appellant herein – the
original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the           C
original accused has preferred the present appeal.
       3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated
01.04.2019, this Court has issued a notice in the present appeal limited to
the extent as to whether the conviction ought to have been under Section
304 Part II or Section 302 IPC. Therefore, this Court is required to             D
consider whether the appellant herein – the original accused has been
rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or is
to be convicted for any other lesser offence, viz. Section 304 Part II
IPC.
       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – original        E
accused has vehemently submitted that as it is a case of a single blow,
Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. It is submitted that even the so-
called motive alleged for the incident is prior to four months of the incident
in question and, therefore, as such, the prosecution has failed to establish
and prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased.                       F
       4.1 It is submitted that, as such, the occurrence had taken place
out of a sudden and grave provocation and therefore the offence would
fall under Exception I to Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the appellant
has to be convicted for the lesser offence than Section 302 IPC.
      4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – accused         G
has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307 and Musumsha
Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashra (2000) 3 SCC 557 in
support of his submission that for causing a single stab injury, Section
302 IPC shall not be attracted.
                                                                                 H
288                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 7 S.C.R.


A            4.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
      decisions of this Court, it is prayed to convert the conviction from Section
      302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.
             5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently
      submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and on
B     appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both - the learned Trial
      Court as well as the High Court have rightly convicted the accused for
      the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is vehemently submitted
      that the accused caused the injury by a knife blow on the vital part of the
      body – Lever. It is submitted that considering the fact that the accused
      was having a knife; the injury inflicted by the accused was on the vital
C     part of the body; and that there was no any grave and sudden provocation
      established and proved, it is submitted that both the Courts below have
      rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section
      302 IPC.
             5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
D     vehemently submitted that there is no absolute proposition of law laid
      down by this Court in any of the decisions that in case of a single blow,
      Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. It is submitted that it is held by
      this Court in catena of decisions that number of injuries is irrelevant; it is
      not always the determining factor for ascertaining the intention. It is
      submitted that as held by this Court, it is the nature of injury; the part of
E     body where it is caused; the weapon used in causing such injury which
      are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of
      the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. Learned counsel
      appearing on behalf of the State has relied upon the following decisions
      of this Court on the single injury and, in such a case, whether Section
F     302 IPC would be attracted or not:
             (i)      Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319;
             (ii)     Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat(2003)
                      9 SCC 322;
             (iii)    Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444;
G            (iv)     Bavisetti Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P.(2008) 15 SCC
                      725;
             (v)      Arun Raj v. Union of India. (2010) 6 SCC 457;
             (vi)     Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799;
H
              STALIN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                               289
              INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      (vii)   Ashokkumar Nagabhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat (2011)            A
              10 SCC 604;
      (viii) Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra
             (2012) 11 SCC 592;
      (ix)    Som Raj v. State of H.P. (2013) 14 SCC 246;
      (x)     State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalicharan (2019) 6 SCC               B
              809;
      (xi)    State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram (2019) 13 SCC 131;
      (xii)   Ananta Kamilya v. State of West Bengal (2020) 2 SCC
              511
                                                                               C
       6. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that the
prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and/or that the
motive alleged of the incident is prior to four months of the incident in
question, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently
submitted that, as rightly observed by the High Court, in a case where
the eye-witnesses are available, the motive becomes insignificant. It is       D
submitted that, in the present case, PWs 1, 2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses
to the incident and therefore, the motive is insignificant in the present
case. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case
of Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) 15 SCC 622.
       7. Heard learned counsel on behalf of the respective parties at         E
length. As observed hereinabove, the only aspect which is required to be
considered in the present appeal is whether the appellant – accused has
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or any other
lesser offence, more particularly, Section 304 Part II IPC?
       7.1 It is the case on behalf of the appellant – accused that as it is   F
a case of single injury, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted and the
case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. While considering the
aforesaid submission, few decisions of this Court on whether in a case
of single injury, Section 302 IPC would be attracted or not are required
to be referred to:
       7.1.1 In Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P., (2000) 1 SCC 319,             G
this Court while deciding the question of whether a single blow with a
knife on the chest of the deceased would attract Section 302 IPC, held
thus: (SCC pp. 322-23, para 9)
            “9. … there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow
      Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow may, in some             H
290            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 7 S.C.R.


A           cases, entail conviction under Section 302 IPC, in some cases
            under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section
            326 IPC. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to
            be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case.
            The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part
            of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the
B
            injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are
            all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention
            or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him.
            In the instant case, the deceased was disabled from saving himself
            because he was held by the associates of the appellant who
C           inflicted though a single yet a fatal blow of the description noted
            above. These facts clearly establish that the appellant had the
            intention to kill the deceased. In any event, he can safely be
            attributed the knowledge that the knife-blow given by him was so
            imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or
            such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
D
            7.1.2 In Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of
      Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322, this Court while discussing the ingredients
      of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, held thus: (SCC pp. 327-28, para 11)
                   “11. The fourth exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts
            done in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with a case of
E
            prosecution (sic provocation) not covered by the first exception,
            after which its place would have been more appropriate. The
            Exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is
            absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1
            there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4,
F           there is only that heat of passion which clouds men’s sober reason
            and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do.
            There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1, but the
            injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In
            fact, Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a
            blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the
G
            origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have
            originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them
            in respect of guilt upon an equal footing. A “sudden fight” implies
            mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide
            committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation,
H
           STALIN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                                291
           INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      nor could in such cases the whole blame be placed on one side.         A
      For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable
      would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or
      determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which
      both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of
      them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own
                                                                             B
      conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is
      then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to
      apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The
      help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without
      premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders
      having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual            C
      manner, and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed.
      To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned
      in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in
      Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two
      to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no
                                                                             D
      time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had
      worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation
      in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons
      whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate
      any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel.
      It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not        E
      must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For
      the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that
      there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It
      must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue
      advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression
                                                                             F
      “undue advantage” as used in the provision means “unfair
      advantage”.”
       7.1.3 In Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC
444, this Court while deciding whether a case falls under Section 302 or
304 Part I or 304 Part II IPC, held thus: (SCC pp. 457-58, para 29):
                                                                             G
              “29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the
      pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will
      decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or
      304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters — plucking of a
      fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude
                                                                             H
292            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 7 S.C.R.


A           word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations
            and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like
            revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such
            cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation.
            In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the
            spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused
B
            attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put
            forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for
            the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under
            Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under
            Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting
C           to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302.
            The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a
            combination of a few or several of the following, among other,
            circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the
            weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the
            spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
D
            (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether
            the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or
            free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or
            whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was
            any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii)
E           whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so,
            the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of
            passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue
            advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether
            the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list
            of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be
F
            several other special circumstances with reference to individual
            cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that
            as it may.”
             7.1.4 In Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799,
      this Court while deciding the question whether a blow on the skull of the
G
      deceased with a crowbar would attract Section 302 IPC, held thus, (SCC
      p. 803, para 16):
                   “16. In our opinion, as nobody can enter into the mind of
            the accused, his intention has to be gathered from the weapon
            used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature of
H
           STALIN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                                  293
           INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      the injuries caused. Here, the appellant had chosen a crowbar as         A
      the weapon of offence. He has further chosen a vital part of the
      body i.e. the 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 irresistibly leads to one and the only conclusion that the
                                                                               B
      appellant intended to cause death of the deceased.”
      7.1.5 In State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal (2019) 5 SCC 639
this Court in paragraphs 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 held as follows:
             “7.3. In Arun Raj [Arun Raj v. Union of India, (2010) 6
      SCC 457 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 155] this Court observed and held           C
      that there is no fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted,
      Section 302 would not be attracted. It is observed and held by this
      Court in the aforesaid decision that nature of weapon used and
      vital part of the body where blow was struck, prove beyond
      reasonable doubt the intention of the accused to cause death of
      the deceased. It is further observed and held by this Court that         D
      once these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there
      was a single blow struck or multiple blows.
              7.4. In Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar [Ashokkumar
      Magabhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 10 SCC 604 :
      (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 397] , the death was caused by single blow on         E
      head of the deceased with a wooden pestle. It was found that the
      accused used pestle with such force that head of the deceased
      was broken into pieces. This Court considered whether the case
      would fall under Section 302 or Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
      It is held by this Court that the injury sustained by the deceased,      F
      not only exhibits intention of the accused in causing death of victim,
      but also knowledge of the accused in that regard. It is further
      observed by this Court that such attack could be none other than
      for causing death of victim. It is observed that any reasonable
      person, with any stretch of imagination can come to conclusion
      that such injury on such a vital part of the body, with such a           G
      weapon, would cause death.
            7.5. A similar view is taken by this Court in the recent
      decision in Leela Ram (supra) and after considering catena of
      decisions of this Court on the issue on hand i.e. in case of a single
                                                                               H
294            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 7 S.C.R.


A           blow, whether case falls under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I
            or Section 304 Part II, this Court reversed the judgment and
            convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In
            the same decision, this Court also considered Exception 4 of Section
            300 IPC and observed in para 21 as under: (SCC para 21)
B                         “21. Under Exception 4, culpable homicide is not
                  murder if the stipulations contained in that provision are
                  fulfilled. They are: (i) that the act was committed without
                  premeditation; (ii) that there was a sudden fight; (iii) the
                  act must be in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel;
                  and (iv) the offender should not have taken undue advantage
C                 or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
            7.1.6 In the case of Bavisetti Kameswara Rao (supra), this Court
      has observed in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:
                   “13. It is seen that where in the murder case there is only
D           a single injury, there is always a tendency to advance an argument
            that the offence would invariably be covered under Section 304
            Part II IPC. The nature of offence where there is a single injury
            could not be decided merely on the basis of the single injury and
            thus in a mechanical fashion. The nature of the offence would
            certainly depend upon the other attendant circumstances which
E           would help the court to find out definitely about the intention on
            the part of the accused. Such attendant circumstances could be
            very many, they being (i) whether the act was premeditated; (ii)
            the nature of weapon used; (iii) the nature of assault on the
            accused. This is certainly not an exhaustive list and every case
F           has to necessarily depend upon the evidence available. As regards
            the user of screwdriver, the learned counsel urged that it was
            only an accidental use on the spur of the moment and, therefore,
            there could be no intention to either cause death or cause such
            bodily injury as would be sufficient to cause death. Merely because
            the screwdriver was a usual tool used by the accused in his
G           business, it could not be as if its user would be innocuous.
                   14. In State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam [(1995) 1 SCC
            326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] this Court considered the usual argument
            of a single injury not being sufficient to invite a conviction under
            Section 302 IPC. In that case the injury was caused by a knife.
H
     STALIN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                                   295
     INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]

The medical evidence supported the version of the prosecution             A
that the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. The High Court had convicted the accused for the
offence under Section 304 Part II IPC relying on the fact that
there is only a single injury. However, after a detailed discussion
regarding the nature of injury, the part of the body chosen by the
                                                                          B
accused to inflict the same and other attendant circumstances
and after discussing clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC and further
relying on the decision in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR
1958 SC 465] , the Court set aside the acquittal under Section 302
IPC and convicted the accused for that offence. The Court
(in Vedanayagam case [(1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231]              C
, SCC p. 330, para 4) relied on the observation by Bose, J. in Virsa
Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] to suggest that: (Virsa Singh
case [AIR 1958 SC 465], AIR p. 468, para 16)
              “16. … With due respect to the learned Judge he
       has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the      D
       injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section
       requires. The two matters are quite separate and distinct,
       though the evidence about them may sometimes overlap.”
      The further observation in the above case were: (Virsa
Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] , AIR p. 468, paras 16 & 17)                 E
        “16. … The question is not whether the prisoner intended
to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to
inflict the injury that is proved to be present. If he can show that
he did not, or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an
inference, then, of course, the intent that the section requires is       F
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. Whether he knew of its seriousness, or
intended serious consequences, is neither here nor there. The
question, so far as the intention is concerned, is not whether
he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree       G
of seriousness, but whether he intended to inflict the injury
in question; and once the existence of the injury is proved
the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence
or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. But
whether the intention is there or not is one of fact and not one of       H
296             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 7 S.C.R.


A           law. Whether the wound is serious or otherwise, and if serious,
            how serious, is a totally separate and distinct question and has
            nothing to do with the question whether the prisoner intended to
            inflict the injury in question.
                    17. … It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be
B           linked up with the seriousness of the injury. For example, if it can
            be proved, or if the totality of the circumstances justify an inference,
            that the prisoner only intended a superficial scratch and that by
            accident his victim stumbled and fell on the sword or spear that
            was used, then of course the offence is not murder. But that is not
            because the prisoner did not intend the injury that he intended to
C           inflict to be as serious as it turned out to be but because he did not
            intend to inflict the injury in question at all. His intention in such a
            case would be to inflict a totally different injury. The difference is
            not one of law but one of fact; …”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)”
D
             7.2 From the above stated decisions, it emerges that there is no
      hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would
      not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
      case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the
      weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether
E     the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing
      death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that
      whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302
      IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case,
      more particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the
F     events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the
      act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing
      death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention
      to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide
      the nature of offence.

G            8. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that the
      motive alleged is of the incident prior to four months of the present
      incident and that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove is
      concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case there are
      three eye-witnesses believed by both the Courts below and we also do
      not doubt the credibility of PWs 1, 2 and 3. As held by this Court in
H
            STALIN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE                                297
            INSPECTOR OF POLICE [M. R. SHAH, J.]

catena of decisions, motive is not an explicit requirement under the Penal    A
Code, though “motive” may be helpful in proving the case of the
prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence. As observed
hereinabove, there are three eye-witnesses to the incident and the
prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused
by examining those three eye-witnesses and therefore, as rightly observed
                                                                              B
by the High Court, assuming that the alleged motive is the incident which
had taken place prior to four months or the prosecution has failed to
prove the motive beyond doubt, the same shall not be fatal to the case of
prosecution.
       8.1 As observed and held by this Court in the case of Jafel Biswas
v. State of West Bengal (2019) 12 SCC 560, the absence of motive              C
does not disperse a prosecution case if the prosecution succeed in proving
the same. The motive is always in the mind of person authoring the
incident. Motive not being apparent or not being proved only requires
deeper scrutiny of the evidence by the courts while coming to a conclusion.
When there are definite evidence proving an incident and eye-witness          D
account prove the role of accused, absence in proving of the motive by
prosecution does not affect the prosecution case.
       9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, more particularly the decisions on the single injury and the
facts on hand, it is required to be considered whether the case would fall    E
under Section 302 IPC or any other lesser offence. PW3 – Nelson, who
is an eye-witness to the incident right from the beginning, deposed that
when the deceased – Kalidas served extra beer to two persons who
came from outside, the accused became angry and told the deceased
why he is giving more beer to out-town people and not giving to local
people and thereafter the problem started and in that scuffle the accused     F
took out the knife and stabbed from behind. From the medical evidence,
the deceased sustained the following injuries:
             “External Injuries:
            A stab wound about 3 x 1.5 cm and 8 cm deep with clean            G
      edges present over the back on the right side corresponding to
      D11 vertebera present. Wound edges swollen, read with adherent
      blood.”
      10. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is
not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in
                                                                              H
298                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 7 S.C.R.


A     the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender
      having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual
      manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being
      served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the
      starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove.
      Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be
B
      said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore,
      in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the
      manner in which the incident started in a beer party, we are of the opinion
      that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted.
             11. Now, the next question which is posed for consideration of
C
      this Court is whether the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC?
      Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and
      more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like
      knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the
      body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to
D     cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part
      I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
             12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence
E     punishable under Section 302 IPC is hereby modified from that of under
      Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The accused is held guilty
      for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced
      to undergo 8 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to
      further undergo one year R.I. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid
      extent.
F

      Ankit Gyan                                              Appeal partly allowed.




G




H