SC expounds manner of Assault and no. of injuries to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge of the accused [Read Judgment]

On16th September the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jugut Ram v. The State of Chhattisgarh comprising of three-Judge Bench Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha, and Justice Indira Banerjee held that the circumstances, manner of assault, nature, and the number of injuries will all have to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge as the case may be.

Submissions by the Appellant

The Appellant submits before the court that all the four witnesses are related to the decease. The two Independent witnesses were not examined. The serological report with regard to the blood group of the deceased matching that alleged to have been found on the lathi has not been established. The recovery of the lathi has not been properly proved. The deceased did not die immediately but succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The assault was a spurt of the moment with no premeditation.

Submission by the State

The state submits before the court that the deceased was in possession of the field. The appellant was the aggressor. The deceased succumbed on the spot. The intention to cause death is apparent from the assault made on the head, a sensitive part of the human body.

The appellant cannot urge to have acted in self defense as he was the aggressor.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court in its findings firstly stated that the High Court on the appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that the assault was not premeditated but had taken place in a heat of passion due to a land dispute. If the appellant had the intention, nothing prevented him from further assaulting the deceased. Further, it is maintained the sentence of the appellant under Section 302, IPC because death had taken place pursuant to the assault by him.

Lathi is a common item carried by a villager in this country, linked to his identity. The fact that it is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter. The circumstances, manner if assault, nature, and number of injuries will have to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge as the case may be.

Judgment

The Supreme Court in its Judgment alters the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the appellant is in custody since 2004. He has already undergone the maximum period of the sentence prescribed under the same. And the appellant is therefore directed to set at liberty.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com