The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the intention or knowledge are mental elements that can only be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, part of the body in which such injury is inflicted, and the overall facts and circumstance of the particular case. Furthermore, when a person inflicts indiscriminate critical injury on a person, he cannot get away with the plea that he had knowledge that his act would result in the death of the person.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that it was alleged that as per the fardbeyan of Ramdeo Yadav, his father along with his son had gone for transplanting paddy in his field which was objected to by his uncle Giro Mahto. Thereafter, the accused started abusing the informant and when this was objected to, the accused person assaulted Giro Mahto.
The case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 302, 506, 448/34 of the IPC against the accused persons. The trial court convicted the accused persons which resulted in the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that it is evident from the post-mortem report that the injuries were not inflicted upon the vital part of the body. It was furthermore contended that the death of the deceased occurred after the 7 days of the incident which clearly shows that there was no intention to cause death.
Contentions of the State
The state contended that the two fundamental ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC are firstly, causing death with the requisite intention and secondly, with the knowledge. In the present case, the death was caused by the shock and hemorrhage caused by multiple injuries.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that the testimony of the injured witness remained undemolished and it is an established law that testimony of injured witnesses is entitled to a higher degree of credence. The court relied upon the judgment titled Abdul Sayeed Vs State of MP.
It was furthermore observed that to prove the charge under Section 304 of the IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the following ingredients:-
- The death of person must have been caused;
- Such death must have been caused by the act of the accused by causing bodily injury;
- There must be an intention on the part of the accused: a. To cause death; or b. To cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause death.
- There must be knowledge on the part of the accused that the bodily injury is such that it is likely to cause death (Part II).
It was noted that Intention or knowledge are mental elements that can only be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body in which such injury is inflicted, and the overall facts and circumstances of the particular case.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there is no infirmity in the conviction of the accused under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case title: Khoshi @ Khosi Mahto Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.703 of 2012
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Shrree Nivas Roy, Advocate
Advocates for the State: Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P
Read judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
