Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 175 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.) No.8715/2014)

Balu S/o Onkar Pund & Others   Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra        Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.166-167 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.) Nos.10109-10110/2014)

AND CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.164-165 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.) Nos.9524-9525/2014)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. These  appeals  are  filed  by  the  accused  

persons  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

1

Page 2

03.02.2014  passed   by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Bombay,  Bench  at  Aurangabad  in  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 215 and  225 of 2011 which  

arise  out  of  judgment/order  dated  11.04.2011  

passed  by  the  Sessions  Judge,  Parbhani  in  

Sessions Trial No.80 of 2008.

2. Accused Nos. 5, 8, 9 & 10 have filed appeal @  

SLP(Crl.)  No.  8715 of  2014  whereas appeals  @  

SLP(Crl.)  Nos.10109-10110/2014  are  filed  by  

accused Nos.1 and 4 and appeals @ SLP(Crl.) Nos.  

9524-9525/2014 are filed by accused Nos. 2, 3 and  

6.

3. By  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  

confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded  

to  the  appellants  by  the  learned  trial  Judge.  

Suffice it to state here that the appellants, apart  

from other offences were convicted under Section  

302  read  with  Section  149  of  the  IPC  and  

2

Page 3

sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay  

fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of  

fine,  to  undergo  further  six  months  rigorous  

imprisonment.  The sentences imposed in respect  

of other offences are of below 7 years and all the  

sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

4. The  question,  regard  being  had  to  the  

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for  

the appellants, is whether the learned trial Judge  

as  well  as  the  High  Court  was  justified  in  

convicting the appellants under Section 302 read  

with  Section  149 IPC  considering  the  genesis  of  

occurrence and the facts in entirety or they should  

have been convicted under Section 304 Part-I, IPC.  

5. In order to appreciate the issue involved in  

these appeals, it is necessary to state the relevant  

facts in brief.

6. Apparao Rajaram Pund (A-1) and Madhavrao  

3

Page 4

Rangnathrao  Range  (PW-  3),  both  resident  of  

village  Itlapur  in  District  Parbhani,  were  good  

friends.  Both  were  agriculturists.  Savitribai-the  

deceased  was  the  wife  of  Madhavrao  Range.  

Around  25-30  years  back,  Madhavarao  had  

purchased two kathas of land from Apparao for his  

cattle shed in the same village and he was also  

placed in  its  possession.  However,  no sale  deed  

was  executed  between  them  yet  Madhavrao  

continued to remain in possession of cattle shed  

all through.

7. In course of time, both entered in politics and  

formed  their  respective  panels  to  contest  the  

elections for the post of Sarpanch of the village. In  

the election, panel led by Madhavrao Range won  

whereas panel led by Apparao Pund lost. Due to  

this event, the relations between them were not as  

cordial as they used to be in the past.  Thereafter  

4

Page 5

Apparao started pressurizing Madhavrao Range to  

vacate the land and hand over the possession of  

cattle shed else he was threatened to face the dire  

consequences.  

8. On 15.01.2008, the appellants around 7.30 to  

8.00 A.M. armed with weapons barged in the cattle  

shed and started removing the iron sheets fixed  

on the roof.  Madhavrao requested the appellants  

not to remove the sheets. Since the appellants did  

not  listen  to  Madhavrao  and  continued  in  their  

operation  in  removing  the  sheets,  Madhavrao  

resisted and made attempt to stop them. At that  

time,  Savitribai and Madhavrao's son - Udhav (PW  

-5), who were also present on the spot, intervened  

and  resisted  the  appellants  from  removing  the  

sheets. This led to scuffle between Apparao ( A-1),  

Sachin-( A-4), Achyut (A-3) and Madhavrao (PW-3).  

Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 beat Madhavrao with fist  

5

Page 6

blows and leg kicks and threw him out of cattle  

shed.  Apparao(A-1),  who  was  having  bottle  

containing kerosene,  poured the entire kerosene  

on  cattle  shed  and  Sachin  (  A-4)  set  the  cattle  

shed  on  fire.   Savitribai,  who  was  resisting  the  

appellants, caught  in contact of fire and received  

severe burn injuries. On noticing this, Madhavrao  

tried  to  enter  in  cattle  shed  to  save  his  wife-

Savitribai.  Gopal (A-2) then inflicted an axe blow  

on Madhavrao’s head due to which he sustained  

bleeding injury.  When Madhavrao cried for  help,  

Navnath  and  other  persons  reached  there  and  

tried  to  extinguish  the  fire.   Thereafter  they  

wrapped Savitribai in a piece of cloth and took her  

to the civil hospital around 10 A.M.  

9. In the meantime, Mohammad Bashir  Sheikh  

Umar (PW-2)- Inspector on duty to the Nanal Peth  

Police Station, got an information that a lady with  

6

Page 7

burn  injuries  was  admitted  to  the  Hospital.  

Therefore, he rushed to the hospital to record her  

statement.   After  getting  certification  from  the  

doctors that Savitribai was in a fit condition to give  

her statement, PW-2 recorded her statement (Ex-

45).  In the meantime, Kishore Achyut Deshmukh  

(PW-1),  In-charge  Tahsildar  of  the  area  also  

reached  to  the  hospital  and  recorded  the  

statement of Savitribai (Ex-P-42).  

10. Annasahab  Gholap  -  Assistant  Police  

Inspector (PW-16) then registered the crime being  

Crime No. 6 of 2008 and started investigation.  On  

the  same  day,  five  accused  were  arrested,  

panchnama (Ex-P-58) was prepared and  several  

articles  were  recovered  from  the  spot.   On  

16.01.2008 at 6.15 a.m., Savitribai succumbed to  

her injuries while in the Hospital. This led to arrest  

of  some other  accused  persons  and  also  led  to  

7

Page 8

registration  of  case  of  offence  punishable  under  

Section  302  of  the   Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  

(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) along with other  

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323,  

324, 436, 440, 448, 506 all  read with Section 149  

IPC  against  the  appellants  and  other  accused  

persons. The case was then committed to Sessions  

for  trial.  The  accused  abjured  their  guilt  and  

claimed  trial.  The  prosecution  examined  16  

witnesses. The statements of the accused persons  

were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of  

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

11. The Sessions judge convicted the appellants-

accused  and  imposed  punishment  to  each  

appellant as specified above.  Challenging the said  

order,  the  appellants  filed  appeals  in  the  High  

Court against their conviction. The High Court, by  

impugned judgment, dismissed their appeals and  

8

Page 9

confirmed  the  conviction  and  sentence  awarded  

by  the  trial  Court  to  each  of  the  appellants.  

Against  the  said  order,  the  appellants  have  

preferred these appeals  by way of  special  leave  

before this Court.

12. While assailing the legality and correctness of  

the impugned order, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,  

learned Counsel for the appellants has argued only  

one  point.   According  to  him,  taking  the  

prosecution case on its  face value,  it  was not  a  

case of murder of Savitribai so as to enable the  

Courts to convict the appellants under Section 302  

IPC  but  it  was  a  case  falling  under  Section  304  

Part-I IPC. Learned counsel pointed out that there  

was neither any intention on the part of any of the  

appellants to commit the murder of Savitribai nor  

the appellants had visited the spot with any such  

intention. Learned Counsel further pointed out that  

9

Page 10

the only intention of  the appellants was to take  

possession of the cattle shed and it was in process  

of  taking  forcible  possession,  the  sudden  fight  

ensued  between  the  two  groups  as  also  cattle  

shed caught fire causing burn injuries to Savitribai,  

which unfortunately resulted in her death.  It was  

also pointed out that if the appellants had come to  

the spot with an intention to eliminate Savitribai,  

they or any member of their group would have in  

the  first  instance  targeted  Savitribai,  who  was  

present on the spot with her husband (PW-3) and  

inflicted  injury.   It  was  not  done.  According  to  

learned Counsel, her death was as a result of burn  

injuries because she was inside the shed,  which  

caught fire.  Therefore, learned Counsel urged that  

this Court should alter the sentence to that of the  

one  punishable  under  Section  304  Part-I  IPC  

instead of under Section 302 IPC because it was  

10

Page 11

not a case of murder but it was a case of culpable  

homicide not amounting to murder.

13. Per  contra,  learned  Counsel  for  the  

respondent  supported  the  impugned  order  and  

urged  that  two  courts  have  rightly  held  the  

appellants  guilty  for  committing  murder  of  

Savitribai and hence the appeals merit dismissal  

calling no interference.

14. Having  heard  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  

parties and on perusal of the record of the case,  

we  find  force  in  the  submission  of  the  learned  

Counsel for the appellants.

15. Before we examine the factual matrix of the  

case in hand, it is apposite to take note of the law  

laid down by this Court on the question as to when  

culpable homicide is a murder under Section 300  

“thirdly”  and  what  are  the  elements  which  the  

prosecution should establish. This Court in  Virsa  

11

Page 12

Singh v.  State  of  Punjab,  1958  SCR  1495,  

examined this issue in detail.  

16. The  learned  Judge  Vivian  Bose  in  his  

distinctive  style  of  writing  and  speaking  for  the  

Court succinctly stated as under:  

“13. In considering whether the intention  was  to  inflict  the  injury  found  to  have  been  inflicted,  the  enquiry  necessarily  proceeds on broad lines as, for example,  whether there was an intention to strike  at  a  vital  or  a  dangerous  spot,  and  whether with sufficient force to cause the  kind  of  injury  found  to  have  been  inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary to  enquire  into  every  last  detail  as,  for  instance,  whether  the prisoner  intended  to have the bowels fall out, or whether he  intended  to  penetrate  the  liver  or  the  kidneys  or  the  heart.  Otherwise,  a  man  who has no knowledge of anatomy could  never  be  convicted,  for,  if  he  does  not  know that there is a heart or a kidney or  bowels,  he  cannot  be  said  to  have  intended to injure them. Of course, that is  not the kind of enquiry. It is broad-based  and simple and based on commonsense:  the  kind  of  enquiry  that  “twelve  good  men  and  true”  could  readily  appreciate  and understand. 14. To  put  it  shortly,  the  prosecution  must prove the following facts  before it  can  bring  a  case  under  Section  300  “thirdly”; 15. First,  it  must  establish,  quite  

12

Page 13

objectively,  that  a  bodily  injury  is  present; 16. Secondly,  the  nature  of  the  injury  must  be  proved;  These  are  purely  objective investigations. 17. Thirdly, it must be proved that there  was an intention to inflict that particular  bodily injury,  that is  to say,  that  it  was  not  accidental  or  unintentional,  or  that  some other kind of injury was intended. 18. Once these three elements are proved  to  be  present,  the  enquiry  proceeds  further and, 19. Fourthly, it must be proved that the  injury of the type just described made up  of  the  three  elements  set  out  above  is  sufficient to cause death in the ordinary  course of nature. This part of the enquiry  is purely objective and inferential and has  nothing  to  do with  the  intention  of  the  offender. 20. Once  these  four  elements  are  established  by  the  prosecution  (and,  of  course, the burden is on the prosecution  throughout) the offence is murder under  Section 300 “thirdly”. It does not matter  that  there  was  no  intention  to  cause  death. It does not matter that there was  no intention even to cause an injury of a  kind that  is  sufficient  to cause death in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  (not  that  there is any real distinction between the  two). It does not even matter that there is  no knowledge that an act of that kind will  be  likely  to  cause  death.  Once  the  intention  to  cause  the  bodily  injury  actually  found  to  be  present  is  proved,  the rest of the enquiry is purely objective  and  the  only  question  is  whether,  as  a  matter of purely objective inference, the  injury is sufficient in the ordinary course  of  nature to cause death. No one has a  

13

Page 14

licence  to  run  around  inflicting  injuries  that are sufficient to cause death in the  ordinary course of nature and claim that  they  are  not  guilty  of  murder.  If  they  inflict injuries of that kind, they must face  the  consequences;  and  they  can  only  escape if it can be shown, or reasonably  deduced, that the injury was accidental or  otherwise unintentional.”

17. Relying  on  the  aforesaid  principle  of  law,  

recently  this  Court  in  Pulicherla  Nagaraju  @  

Nagaraja Reddy Vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh  

(2006)11 SCC 444, again examined the issue as to  

what  relevant  factors  should  be  kept  in  

consideration  while  deciding  the  question  as  to  

whether case in hand falls under Section 302 or  

304 Part-I or Part-II.  Justice Raveendran speaking  

for the Court held in para 29 as under:  

“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  word  or  even  an  objectionable  glance,  may  lead  to  altercations  and  group  

14

Page 15

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 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  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; (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)  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,  

15

Page 16

of course, not exhaustive and there may  be  several  other  special  circumstances  with reference to individual  cases which  may  throw  light  on  the  question  of  intention. Be that as it may.”

18. Applying the aforesaid principle of law to the  

facts of the case in hand and keeping the same in  

consideration when we examine the evidence of  

the prosecution, we find that this is a case where  

the appellants should have been convicted for the  

offence  punishable  under  Section  304  Part-I  

instead of Section 302 IPC.  

19. It is for the reason that firstly, neither there  

was any motive and nor any intention on the part  

of  any  of  the  appellants  to  eliminate  Savitribai.  

Secondly,  there was no enmity of any kind with  

Savitribai  in  person  with  any  of  the  appellants.  

Thirdly,  the  appellants  had  gone  there  to  take  

possession  of  the  cattle  shed  and  not  with  an  

intention  to  kill  any  member  of  the  family  of  

Madhavrao Renge. Fourthly, if at all, if there was  

16

Page 17

some kind  of  animosity  or  jealousy  then  it  was  

towards  A-1  whose panel  had won the  election.  

Savitribai had nothing to do with election because  

she never contested the election.  Fifthly, despite  

the appellants armed with weapons, none of them  

inflicted any injury or gave blow to Savitribai but  

single blow was inflicted only on Madhavrao, who  

fortunately survived. Sixthly, Savitribai died due to  

sustaining  of  burn  injuries,  which  she  suffered  

because the appellants ablazed the cattle shed by  

pouring  kerosene  on  it.  In  other  words,  if  the  

appellants had not  ablazed the cattle shed then  

the incident of death of Savitribai would not have  

occurred.  Eighthly,  it  was  a  fight  on  a  spur  of  

moment  between  the  two  male  groups  on  the  

issue of taking possession of cattle shed with no  

intention to kill any one and lastly, in the absence  

of any overt act attributed to any of the appellants  

17

Page 18

towards Savitribai for inflicting any injury to her,  

the appellants could not have been convicted for  

an offence of committing murder of Savitribai so  

as  to  attract  the  rigour  of  Section  302  IPC  and  

instead they should  have been convicted for  an  

offence  of  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to  

murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.  

20. In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow  

the appeals in part. The appellants are accordingly  

convicted for an offence punishable under Section  

304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC and each  

of the appellants is hereby awarded 7 years RI.

21. So  far  as  the  conviction  and  sentence  

awarded by the courts below under various other  

sections, as specified above, are concerned, they  

are  upheld  calling  no  interference.   All  the  

sentences shall run concurrently.     

               ….……...................................J. [DIPAK MISRA]

18

Page 19

                               ……………..................................J.

 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; February 2, 2015.

19