Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan  Insc 140 (15 February 2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4284 of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.
By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld the judgment of Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara holding the appellant guilty of offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:
First information report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged by Duda Ram (PW-5)
on 15.11.2001. According to the FIR, the informant was a Chowkidar for Chirag
Travel Agency. At about 12 midnight, he saw a body on the railway overbridge.
A bearded man was pelting stones, he closed the doors of the office and went
inside. After sometime, when he opened the door, he saw that there was a dead
body lying. Seeing this, a report was lodged with Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara
where a Case No. 501/2001 was registered. Recovery was made of the knife on the
basis of disclosure made by the accused. After registration of the case,
investigation was conducted and after investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the accused. The case was committed to the trial court. The trial court
framed the charges against the accused persons for offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.
Placing reliance on evidence of Neela Bai (PW-9), the wife of the deceased,
the trial court held the accused guilty. The High Court also found the evidence
of this eye witness to be reliable and dismissed the appeal by impugned
With reference to certain observations made by the trial court learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court found that it was
impossible that the accused who himself is lame and travels on a tricycle could
take PW9 to his jhuggi a place far from place of incident and therefore the
evidence of PW-9 cannot be believed. She had herself accepted that earlier she
was married to the accused and later on stated living with the deceased. The
informant (PW-5) resiled from his statement recorded during investigation.
Ultimately it was submitted that only one blow was given and therefore Section
302 IPC has no application.
Per contra learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.
Evidence of PW-9 is to the effect that in the night she and the deceased
were sleeping under a neem tree by the side of the railway track. Suddenly the
accused came there, stabbed the deceased and forcibly took her to his jhuggi.
She accepted that the distance was considerable. She had lost her senses after
seeing the accused stab the deceased. She accepted that the accused was
physically disabled and normally moved in a tricycle. She clarified that since
deceased was sleeping he could not escape from the stab blow.
The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to be
applied. In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is the genus and 'murder'
its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking
generally, 'culpable homicide' sans special characteristics of murder is
culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing
punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC
practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what
may be called, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest
form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The
second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is
punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is 'culpable
homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and
the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments
provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable
under the second part of Section 304.
The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not
amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if
Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the
legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute
abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application
of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the
various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will
be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences.
Section 299 Section 300 A person commits culpable homicide Subject to
certain exceptions if the act by which the death is culpable homicide is murder
caused is done if the act by which the death is caused is done - INTENTION (a)
with the intention of causing (1) with the intention of death; or causing
death; or (b) with the intention of causing (2) with the intention of such
bodily injury as is likely causing such bodily injury to cause death; or as the
offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm
is caused; or (3) With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and
the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death; or KNOWLEDGE **** (c) with the knowledge that the act
(4) with the knowledge that is likely to cause death. the act is so imminently
dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.
Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section
300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is
the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being
in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused
to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not
in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in
normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that the 'intention to cause
death' is not an essential requirement of clause (2). Only the intention of
causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the
likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is
sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of
clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300.
Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part
of the offender. Instances of cases falling under clause (2) of Section 300 can
be where the assailant causes death by a fist blow intentionally given knowing
that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or
diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that particular person
as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart,
as the case may be. If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or
special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence will
not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally
In clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words 'likely to cause death'
occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words
"sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" have
been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to
cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in
miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and
clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death
resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the
degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is
of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in clause (b) of
Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere
possibility. The words "bodily injury.......sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most
result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature.
For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender
intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional
bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kerala, (AIR 1966 SC 1874) is an apt
illustration of this point.
In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1958 SC 465), Vivian Bose, J.
speaking for the Court, explained the meaning and scope of clause (3). It was
observed that the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can
bring a case under Section 300, "thirdly". First, it must establish
quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of the
injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it
must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury,
that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other
kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be
present, the enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must be proved that the
injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above
was 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.
The ingredients of clause "Thirdly" of Section 300, IPC were
brought out by the illustrious Judge in his terse language as follows:
"To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts
before it can bring a case under Section 300, "thirdly".
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely
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.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds
further and, 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
The learned Judge explained the third ingredient in the following words (at
"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 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 or 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 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."
These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus classicus. The test laid
down by Virsa Singh's case (supra) for the applicability of clause
"Thirdly" is now ingrained in our legal system and has become part of
the rule of law. Under clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is
murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied: i.e.
that the act which causes death is
done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of
causing a bodily injury; and
that the injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must
be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury
which, in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death, viz.,
that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be
Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh's case, even if the
intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend
to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. Illustration
(c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.
Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300 both require
knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. It is not necessary for
the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these
It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section 300 would be
applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death
of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or
persons being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a
practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the
highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron imperatives. In most
cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the Court. But sometimes
the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages so telescoped
into each other that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment to
the matters involved in the second and third stages.
The position was illuminatingly highlighted by this Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr.
(1976 (4) SCC 382), Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors.
v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2002 (7) SCC 175), Augustine Saldanha v. State
of Karnataka (2003 (10) SCC 472), Shanker Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra
2005 (9) SCC 71, Thangiya v. State of T.N. (2005 (9) SCC 650), Rajinder v.
State of Haryana (2006 (5) SCC 425) and in Raj Pal v. State of Haryana (2006
(9) SCC 678).
In view of the factual position as noted in the background of the principles
set up above it is clear that the appropriate conviction is under Section 304
Part I, IPC which is accordingly altered. Custodial sentence of 10 years would
meet the ends of justice.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.