& Ors Vs. State by Insp.of Police,Nilgiris  INSC 552 (1 April 2008)
P.P. Naolekar & Aftab Alam
O R D E R CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.579 OF 2008 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL)
NO.2054 OF 2007] 1. Leave granted.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there was no
intention to kill the deceased Savithri and thus their conviction under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code by the courts below was not proper.
3. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.
The nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased has been referred to in
paragraph nos.21, 22 and 23 by the High Court which read as under:
"21. It was lastly contended that the deceased intervened and A-3 to
A-5 attacked her and this would not come under the ambit of the offence under
Section 302 IPC. It is also contended that A-5 caused only contusion on the
face of the deceased and as such, if at all, he could be convicted only for the
22. We are not impressed with the submission. Ex. P-13 post mortem
certificate shows that the deceased Savithri sustained injury on the head with
bleeding in the scalp on the left temporal and right temporal parietal region
and the membranes were intact and that there was "subural haemorrhage in
the left fronto-parietal and right tempero parietal region" and the
bleeding into the brain matter in the temporal region cortical and subcortical
areas. In Ex. P.15 final opinion, PW.12 Doctor would state that the deceased
"died due to shock and haemorrhage due to extensive head
injury-subarachnoid haemorrhage and bleeding into the brain matter".
23. So, the details of the injuries found in Exhibits P-13 and P-15 would
clearly indicate that a heavy force had been employed by A-3 to A-5 to cause
injuries on the head of the deceased, which resulted in her death by causing
injuries on the very brain matter. Therefore, in our view, the conviction and
sentence imposed on A-3 to A-5 are perfectly justified and the same are to be
4. From a perusal of the aforesaid reasoning given by the High Court, we are
satisfied that there was an intention to cause death of the deceased on the
part of the accusedappellants and thus we do not find any good or sufficient
reason to interfere with the sentence imposed on them.
5. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.