The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in order to prove charge of culpable homicide, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused persons had requisite intention or knowledge to cause death. Murder is an aggregated form of culpable homicide and the offence is made out if the offenders note that their acts were likely to cause death of the person to whom harm was caused or it was intended to inflict such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or with the knowledge that it was eminently dangerous that it was cause death in all probability without any excuse for the same.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was lodged by the informant in which it was alleged that he along with his younger brother were fencing their land to prevent grazing of the crop by cattle. Then, the appellants came and objected to the fencing and started abusing them with the intention of killing. Thereafter, they assaulted them. The FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, and 307 of the IPC against altogether seven named accused persons. Murlidhar Mahto (younger brother of the informant) succumbed to injury and Section 302 of the IPC was added to the FIR. The trial court convicted the accused persons. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the incident took place in the spur of the moment with any premeditation in which the entire family members were roped in the case. It was furthermore contended that there was no intention to cause death as wood handle was used in the assault.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused had the essential knowledge or intention to cause death in order to prove the charge of culpable homicide. Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide. An offense is proven when a perpetrator notes that the victim of their actions was likely to die from the harm they caused, that their actions were intended to cause a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to result in death, or that they knew their actions were extremely dangerous and likely to result in death without reasonable doubt.
It was furthermore observed that intention or knowledge is a mental element that can be derived only by way of inference from nature of injury, part of the body in which the such injury is inflicted, nature of weapon used, and the manner in which the said weapon was used.
The court noted that according to exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide is not considered murder if it is carried out in the heat of passion during a sudden fight, without any prior planning, and without the accused taking unfair advantage of the situation or acting in a harsh or unusual way.
The court furthermore noted that in case of a sudden or free fight, Section 149 of the IPC has no application.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that as the appellant has already served a sentence of imprisonment for more than ten years, a sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone for the offense under Sections 148 and 304 Part II of the IPC will meet the ends of justice.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Narendra Mahto V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 486 of 2014
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
