The division judge bench of the Patna High Court held that one solid attack on the vital portion of the body like the head is good enough to attract the mischief of Section 300 of the I.P.C. as the person giving such assault would be expected to harbour the intention of killing or of causing such bodily injury as would be surely cause death in normal circumstances. But then, this has to be tested by the circumstances in which the assault was made.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant alleged that on the day of the protest, against appellant/Bharat Rai, the Appellant/ Chandeshwar Rai and Vijay Rai got infuriated and ordered the other appellants to kill the deceased. Thereafter, appellant/Pradip Rai assaulted the deceased on his head using a sword, due to which, he became unconscious. Also, when the family members of the informant and the deceased came to the rescue, they were assaulted. Furthermore, Indar Rai (deceased) was brought to Sadar Hospital Hajipur, whereafter a referral was made to Patna and while he was on the way to Patna, he died.
The case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 506 of the I.P.C. The trial court convicted the Appellants.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that under Section 149 I.P.C., in order to find someone guilty, the prosecution must first establish that all members of the assembly shared a common objective, and then they must demonstrate that all members of the accused were aware of the offences that would likely be committed to fulfil the objective. There is neither a common objective to murder the dead nor any knowledge on the part of the accused of the fact that the deceased would be killed due to his protest. Therefore, both the ingredients are missing.
It was noted that one serious attack on a vital body part, such as the head, is sufficient to invoke Section 300 of the I.P.C. because the offender is presumed to have intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm that would undoubtedly result in death under normal circumstances. However, this needs to be evaluated in light of the specific circumstances of the assault. In the present scenario, there was no pre-meditation. It was a sudden fight and no special advantage was taken by the appellant/Bharat Rai of the lone dissenter (deceased) standing in the field. Therefore, there could be a possibility of the appellant having never intended to kill the deceased and the case would fall under Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C., rendering the offence committed by him to be a culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C.
Based on these considerations, the court converted the conviction of appellant/Pradip Rai to one under Section 304 Part I of the I.P.C.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Chandeshwar Rai Vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1174 of 2017
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Adv. Ms. Diksha Kumari, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
