STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusGOLOO RAIKWAR AND ANR.

                          [2016) 2 S.C.R. 277



                  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                  A
                                   v.
                  GOLOO RAIKWAR AND ANR.
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 185of2016)
                           MARCH 02, 2016                                  B
    [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
         Penal Code, 1860: s. 304 Part I - Prosecution case was that
  PW-I and his uncle victim-deceased were on their way - They sm;•
  all the accused persons armed with weapons coming towards them
  - Accused-B hurled a country bomb at them - On explosion, they
                                                                           c
  fell down - Accused-B dealt a blow of sword to PWJ and other
  accused also assaulted him with weapons - PWJ saw accused
  persons assaulting the victim-deceased with their weapons - PWJ
  ran and informed PW3, brother of the deceased - Deceased was
. rushed to hospital where he was declared dead - Conviction by            D
  trial court u/s. 302 and life imprisonment - High Court noted that
  injury no.3 was not on vital part of the body and other injuries
  were not fatal in nature and ther~fore, since intention to commit
  murder of the deceased was not established, the offence was. not
  murder and. therefore, modified conviction to one u/s.304 Part 1
                                                                           E
  and awarded RI for 10 years - States appeal against modification
  of conviction and reduction of sentence - Held: The doctor who
  conducted the autop~y stated that the injuries found on the body
  were sufficient to cause death - The fact that the accused hurled
  country made bombs was established - The incised injuries caused
· to the deceased were intentional and were sufficient to cause death      F
  in the ordinary course of nature even if it cannot be said that his
  death was intended -This was sufficient to bring the case within
   thirdly of s.300 - High Court was in error in altering the conviction
  of the respondents/accused from one u!s. 302 to that u/s . 304-1 -
   Order of trial court restored.
                                                                           G
       Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. When the deceased along with PWl were going
 to eat betals respondents/accused came from the front side and
 second respondent pelted country bomb at them and inflicted
 blow of sword on the deceased and the other accused assaulted             H
                                  277
278             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     the deceased with sword, Gupti and Kankur and they also attacked
      PWl with weapons. The deceased was soiled in blood and was
      moanhr and on being taken to hospital, was declared dead.
      lnjuri~s no.I to 4 found on the body of the deceased were incised
      wounds and 3"' and 4" of them were inflicted on the right knee
      joint and head respectively. The doctor who conducted the
 B
      autopsy stated that the injuries found on the body were sufficient
      to cause death. It was pointed ont that the cause of death was
      excessive haemorrhage from injury no.3 which was on the knee.
      [Para 8] [281-E-G]
            2. The fact that the accused hurled country made bombs
 c    was established. The incised injuries caused to the deceased
      were intentional and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
      course of nature even if if cannot be said that his death was
      intended. This is sufficient to bring the case within thirdly of
      Section 300. [Para 10] [282-G]
 D          State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Pu1111ayya and
            Am: (1976) 4 SCC 382: 1977 (1) SCR 601 - referred
            to.
                             Case Law Reference

 E          1977 (1) SCR 601          referred to.       Para 9
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      No. 185 of2016.
            From the Judgment and order dated 26.09.2012 of the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.
 F    1797 of2004.
            Ankit Kr. Lal, Mishra Saurabh, Advs., for the Appellant.
            Akshat Shrivastava, Adv., for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 G          C. NAGAPPAN, J. I. Leave granted.
          2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26.9.2012
   passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal seat at Jabalpur
   in Criminal Appeal No. 1797 of 2004 whereby the High Court partly
   allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/accused, by setting aside
 H their conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicted them for the
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. GOLOO RAIKWAR                                    279
                         re.
                    NAGAPPAN, J.l

offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and thereby reducing their sentence         A
from life imprisonment to Rigorous Imprisonment for I 0 years.
       3. Briefly the facts are as follows: Deceased Hari Choudhary is
the uncle of PWl Kallu Choudhary. On 15.8.2000 at about 3.30 p.m.
both of them were going to eat betel and on their way they saw respondent
no.1 /accused Golu, respondent no.2/accused Bhura and three other                B
accused namely Puttu@ Ram Charan, Gabbar and Bedilal armed with
weapons, coming and accused Bhura hurled country bomb at them. On
explosion they fell down and accused Bhura dealt a blow of sword to
PW! Kallu and the other accused also assaulted him with their weapons.
PWl saw the accused persons assaulting Hari Choudhary with their
weapons. He ran and informed PW3 Ram N iwas, brother of Hari and
                                                                                 c
they carried injured Hari to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur where he was
declared dead. On telephonic information PW 10 Sub-Inspector R.B.
Soni reached the hospital and recorded Exh.Pl complaint given by PW 1
Kallu and prepared Exh.P2 Murg Report. He conducted inquest and
prepared Exh.P3 Inquest Report and gave requisition for conducting               D
post-mortem. He also sent injured PW l Kallu for medical examination.
      4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain conducted the autopsy and found
following injuries on the body ofHari:
      i)     Incised wound 3" x Yi'' muscle deep on right cheek
                                                                                 E
      ii)    Incised wound 4" x Y," x bone deep on left cheek extending
             up to ear. The pinna of the ear was cut.
      iii)   Incised wound on right knee joint posteriorly to lateral aspect.
             Joint disarticulated. Patella hanging with the help of tendon.
             Vessels, nerves and other soft tissues severed.
                                                                                 F
       iv)   Incised wound 3" x %" x bone deep over occipital region
             obliquely placed. Clotted blood matting the skull hair.
      v)     Swelling of blue colour on the riglit shoulder on the back
             side 6" in length.
      vi)    Linear abrasion over left side of chest lateral aspect 4" in        G
             length, bluish in colour.
             Injuries No.1,2,3 and 4 were caused by hard and sharp object.
             Injuries No.S and 6 might have been caused by hard and
             blunt object. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature
                                                                                 H
280              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A                  and were sufficient to cause death. In the opinion of Dr.
                   Jain, cause of death was excessive haemorrhage from Injury
                   No.3. The death of deceased was homicidal.
              5. PW I 0 Sub-Inspector Soni, after registering a case under Section
      302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
 B    (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused persons and after
      investigation filed the charge-sheet. After committal the Sessions Court
      framed charges against both the respondents herein and accused Puttu
      @ Ram Charan. Accused Gabbar and Bedilal were absconding. The
      trial court convicted the respondents herein for the offence under Section
      302 IPC and acquitted them for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the
c     SC/ST (P.A.) Act and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and
      to pay a fine of Rs. I 000/- each in default to undergo one month simple
      imprisonment for the charge of murder. At the same time the trial court
      acquitted accused Puttu @ Ram Charan of the charges. Challenging
      the same, both the respondents herein preferred appeal and the High
 D    Court altered the conviction and sentence as mentioned above. Aggrieved
      by the same the State has preferred the present appeal.
              6. The learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the
      view taken by the High Court is patently erroneous in law as the offence
      under Section 302 IPC was clearly made out. It is his further submission
 E    that the High Court has committed an error in holding that injury no.3
      was not on vital part of the body and the other injuries were not fatal in
      nature, and therefore, intention to commit murder of the deceased cannot
      be held established. According to him the accused attacked the deceased
      by hard and sharp weapons at the time of occurrence resulting in his
      death and the offence of murder is clearly made out. Per contra the
 F    learned counsel appearing forthe respondents supported the view taken
      by the High Court and submitted thatthe impugned judgment is sustainable
      in law.
             7. The respondents have not challenged their conviction. The
      trial court, as already noticed, had convicted the respondents of the
 G    offence of murder. The High Court has disagreed with the Trial Court
      and held the offence was not 'murder' but one under Section 304-1 of
      the Indian Penal Code. The High Court reached this conclusion on the
      following reasoning:
             "17. On perusal of the evidence of Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (PW-
 H           6) it seems that injuries No. I and 2, which were caused on right
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. GOLOO RAIKWAR                                   281
                  [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]

       and left cheeks of deceased by sharp edged weapons, were not              A
       grievous. Similarly, injury No.4, which was an incised wound on
       the occipital region of the skull was bone deep. ~Though there
       was bleeding from it, but the bone was not found cut. Injuries
       No.5 and 6 were respectively swelling and abrasions on shoulder
       and chest. No. underneath organ was found damaged. No doubt
                                                                                 R
       Dr. Jain stated that injuries found on the body of deceased were
       sufficient to cause his death, but he did not mention this fact in the
       postmortem report (Ex.P/I 0). In Ex.P/10 as well as in court he
       specifically stated that the cause of death of deceased was
       excessive haemorrhage from·the injury No.3 which was on the
       knee.                                                                     c
       18. In view of the above medical evidence, in, our opinion, it cannot
       be held established with certainty that appellants intended to
       commit murder of the deceased, but, since they caused number
       of injuries by sharp edged weapons to deceased and the injury
       No.3 proved fatal, it can be held that appellants assaulted deceased      D
       with an intention of causing such bodily injuries to him as were
       likely to cause his death making them liable to be punished under
       Section 304-1 of the Indian Penal Code".
       8. We are unable to appreciate and accept this reasoning. When
 the deceased along with PW 1 Kallu Choudhary were going to eat betals           E
 respondents/accused came from the front side and second respondent
 Bhura pelted country bomb at them and inflicted blow of sword on Hari
 and the other accused assaulted Hari with sword, Gupti and Kankur and
 they also attacked PW 1 Kallu Choudhary with weapons. Hari was
 soiled in blood and was moaning and on being taken to hospital, was
 declared dead. Injuries no.1 to 4 found on the body ofHari were incised          F
·wounds and 3'' and 4'h of them were inflicted on the right knee joint and
 head respectively. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain who conducted the autopsy
 has stated that the injuries found on the body were sufficient to cause
 death. It was pointed out that the cause of death was excessive
 haemorrhage from injury no.3 which was on the knee.                             G
       9. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and
Anr. ( 1976) 4 SCC 382), this Court had to deal with a similar situation.
hi that case, the accused 5 in number beat the victim with sticks on the
legs and arms of the deceased and when hospitalized the deceased
succumbed to his injuries. The medical officer who conducted the
                                                                                 H
282              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2016] 2 S .C.R.


 A    autopsy opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage
      resulting from multiple injuries and said injuries were cumulatively
      sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Question
      arose whether in such a case when no significant injury had been inflicted
      on a vital part of the body, and the weapons used were sticks and the
      accused could not be said to have the intention of causing death, the
 B
      offence would be 'murder' or merely 'culpable homicide not amounting
      to murder'. This Court answered the question in these terms:
            ·'39 ......... All these acts of the accused were preplanned and
            intentional, which, considered objectively in the light of the medical
            evidence, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
 c          death. The mere fact that the beating was designedly confined
            by the assailants to the legs and arms, or that none of the multiple
            injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in the ordinary course
            of nature to cause death, will not exclude the application of clause
            thirdly of Section 300. The expression "bodily injury" in clause
 D          thirdly includes also its plural, so that the clause would cover a
            case where all the injuries intentionally caused by the accused
            are cumulatively sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary
            course of nature, even if none of those injuries individually
            measures upto such sufficiency. The sufficiency spoken of in
            this clause, as already noticed, is the high probability of death in
 E          the ordinary course of nature, and if such sufficiency exists and
            death is caused and the injury causing it is intentional, the case
             would fall under clause thirdly of Section 300. All the conditions
             which are a prerequisite for the applicability of this clause have
             been established and the offence committed by the accused, in
. F          the instant case was 'murder'."
             10. In the present case, the fact that the accused hurled country
      made bombs, has been established. The incised injuries caused to Hari
      were intentional and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
      of nature even if it cannot be said that his death was intended. This is
 G    sufficient to bring the case within thirdly of Section 300.
            11. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the High
      Court was in error in altering the conviction of the respondents/accused
      from one under Section 302 to that under Section 304-I Indian Penal
      Code. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
 H    judgment and restore the judgment of the trial court convicting the
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. GOLOO RAlKWAR                               283
                  [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]

respondents/accused for the offence of murder, with a sentence of            A
imprisonment for life. The respondents/accused are directed to surrender
before the trial court to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which
the trial court would forthwith issue warrants of arrest and send them to
jail.
Devika Gujral                                             Appeal allowed.    B