Summary
Two men attacked their unarmed cousin with axes over a long-standing land dispute while he was levelling land near his septic tank. They struck him on the head and wounded his daughter when she intervened, and he died in hospital twenty days later. The Supreme Court upheld their murder convictions under Section 302 IPC. The related eyewitnesses were credible and corroborated. There was no sudden quarrel or grave and sudden provocation, since the accused, already armed, entered the victim's premises and aimed at his head. The twenty-day gap did not reduce the offence, because the post-mortem linked death directly to the injuries.
Issues
- Whether the appellants' conviction for murder should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 1 or Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, given a pre-existing land dispute.
- Whether the victim's death twenty days after the assault, following surgery, shows that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Provisions considered
- Sections 299, 300 (thirdly and fourthly, Exceptions 1 and 4) and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Following Virsa Singh, Rayavarapu Punnayya and Pulicherla Nagaraju, the degree of probability of death from the intended injury and circumstances such as the weapon, the vital part targeted, premeditation and undue advantage determine whether the offence is murder; K.M. Nanavati's test for grave and sudden provocation was applied. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23)
Held
- The relationship of the eyewitnesses to the deceased does not exclude their testimony; the daughter, herself wounded by an axe while intervening, was credible and was corroborated by her uncle, mother and aunt, so the unprovoked armed attack is established. (¶ 14)
- There was no sudden quarrel: the appellants abused the deceased unprovoked, climbed the wall into his premises armed with axes and struck his head, showing premeditation and undue advantage; nor was any grave and sudden provocation shown, a long-standing dispute without evidence of aggravation being insufficient, and facts within the appellants' knowledge not having been brought on record. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- There is no formula that death after a lapse of time makes the offence culpable homicide (Om Parkash, Patel Hiralal Joitaram, Sudershan Kumar); what matters is the nature of the injury, and the post-mortem doctor attributed death to cardio-respiratory failure resulting from the multiple injuries, so injury and death were directly linked. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 2025 of 2022 dismissed without costs; conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 20.02.2019 in Cr. A. No. 178 of 2013 upheld.