Sonu Jain, Jiwan and Santosh vs. State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Criminal Appeal, 474,616 and 644 Judgment Date: Apr 06, 2021

Law laid down - 

Section 302/304 Part-II Indian Penal Code - Single blow- As a Rule of Thumb, it cannot be said that in no case of single blow or injury, accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts 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 or under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

Section 302 & 304 Part-II of IPC - The relevant factors on the strength which a decision can be taken regarding the offence committed are :-

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;

(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;

(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;

(f)The age and general health condition of the accused;

(g)Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;

(h)The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted.

(i)The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;

(j)Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;

(k)Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;

(l)Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;

(m)The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment?

These factors are illustrative and not exhaustive in nature. Other relevant factors can also be taken into consideration for deciding appropriate sentence to the accused.

Section 302 of IPC – Hot altercation took place between deceased and appellants. - Deceased slapped appellant Santosh. Appellants left the place of incident. After almost half an hour, the appellants rushed back to the place of quarrel and Santosh with the aid of other appellants, gave single blow to the deceased. Single blow is not outcome of spur of moment.

The nature of injury, the gravity and dimension shows that knife was a deadly weapon otherwise the rib of deceased could not have been cut and injury could not have been so deep to reach upper portion of right lung. Injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Section 300 IPC – It has five exceptions wherein culpable homicide will not fall within the ambit of murder. Under Exception 1 and injury resulting into death of the person would not be considered as murder when the offender has lost his self-control due to the grave and sudden provocation. This aspect is a question of fact.

Doctrine of Provocation - Provocation must be such as temporarily deprives the person provoked of the power of self-control, as a result of which he commits the unlawful act which causes death. The heated altercation and slap on Santosh by the deceased did not have the effect of temporarily depriving him of the power of self-control. The resentment shown by appellants after 25-30 minutes does not have any reasonable relation with nature of provocation. Hence, in our view, crime of murder cannot be reduced to manslaughter. The appellants also acted in a cruel manner which brings their case outside the purview of Exception 4.

Sudden Altercation – Use of deadly weapon – Intention of appellant. The single blow by knife was not made during the course of heated altercation. After almost 30 minutes, a knife capable of cutting a rib was used on a part of body which was a vital part. Which shows beyond reasonable doubt the intention of appellants to cause death of the deceased. Since these ingredients are proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows. [(2010) 6 SCC 457 – Arun Raj vs. Union of India followed]

Section 85 of IPC – Drunkenness – is ordinarily neither a defence nor excuse for crime. Burden is on the defence to establish that degree of intoxication was such because of which they could not prevent themselves from committing the act in question. Intoxication must have been against the will of accused persons or the thing which he was intoxicated was administered to him without his knowledge.

Murder under the influence of liquor – Aristotle said that a man deserves double punishment because he has doubly offended in being drunk to the evil examples of other and in addition committing the crime of homicide.

Murder or Manslaughter – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the size of weapon was immaterial because weapon had the capacity to cause death which is clear from the fact that it had cut a rib of deceased and reached to the right lung of the deceased. None of the exceptions mentioned under Section 300 of IPC are attracted in the instant case. Hence, it’s a case of murder and not of manslaughter.

Indian Evidence Act – Omission/Contradiction- In Dehati Nalishi & FIR, it was not mentioned that deceased was caught hold by two appellants by his hand. However, it was mentioned that he was caught hold of by two appellants. FIR is not an encyclopaedia. In Dehati Nalishi/FIR, the expression allegedly used by two appellants was 'Maro Sale ko' whereas in the statement recorded in the Court, they stated 'Jaan se maar do'. There was no improvement which introduces a new facet of the case. Every omission is not a contradiction. Minor details which are not indicative in the FIR are later on elaborated in Court, do not justify the criticism that the case originally presented has been abandoned to be substituted by another view.

Practice and Procedure. The trial Court after going through the entire evidence formed an opinion about the credibility of witnesses. The appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons.

Sonu Jain, Jiwan and Santosh vs. State of M.P.