Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for killing an elderly man by a blow to the head with the reverse side of an axe during an armed intrusion into his house, rejecting the plea that the fatal injury could have been caused by a fall and that the offence was at most culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the three injured eyewitnesses, who were grandchildren of the deceased, could be discarded as that of related or interested witnesses.
- Whether the absence of any incised injury on the deceased, despite the accused allegedly carrying cutting weapons, and the doctor's opinion that the fatal head injury could have been caused by an accidental fall, created doubt about the cause of death.
- Whether omissions in the witnesses' Section 161 CrPC statements regarding the reverse hit of the axe undermined their account of the overt act.
- Whether the offence fell under Section 304 Part II IPC or any Exception to Section 300, rather than murder under Section 302.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860Conviction affirmed. The accused came as aggressors to the victims' house armed with deadly weapons, trespassed, fought with the inmates and struck the deceased on the head, a vital part, with the reverse side of an axe; the intention to cause injuries likely to cause death was clear from the weapons carried and the manner of their use, and the death after some days was the result of that blow. (¶¶ 2, 13, 14)
- Sections 300 and 304 Part II, Penal Code, 1860The plea that, at most, the accused could be convicted under Section 304 Part II was rejected: the facts of the fight and the overt acts did not disclose an offence under Part II of Section 304 nor fall within any Exception to Section 300, so there was no basis for reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (¶¶ 3, 13)
- Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860Convictions for the hurt caused to the three injured grandchildren (incised wounds, abrasions, swelling and contusions corroborated by the doctor) were affirmed along with the sentences of six months and one year respectively. (¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 9, 14)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Contradictions with the Section 161 statements, notably that PW2 and PW3 had not mentioned the reverse hit of the axe, were treated as embellishments that did not render the testimony of the overt act unbelievable; even ignoring them the overt act stood proved. (¶¶ 7, 8, 12)
Held
- Merely because eyewitnesses are related to the deceased they cannot be termed interested witnesses, particularly where there is ocular testimony; where the incident occurred inside the house of the victims, the presence of outsiders was remote and the witnesses being injured in the same transaction makes their testimony credible. Because animosity over the disputed land was a double-edged factor that could also suggest false implication, the Court examined their testimony closely and found nothing to doubt its veracity. (¶¶ 5, 6, 10)
- When a scuffle ensues, witnesses who were themselves actively involved and injured cannot be expected to give minute details of who inflicted which blow with what weapon and exactly how. The omission in Section 161 statements of the reverse hit by the axe did not discredit the consistent testimony that the deceased was struck on the head; even treating it as embellishment and ignoring it, the overt act stood proved. (¶ 12)
- The doctor's evidence that the fatal head injury could have been caused either by a hard and blunt object or by an accidental fall did not detract from the finding of murder, in view of the corroborated ocular testimony of a blow with the reverse side of an axe, the accused having come armed with deadly weapons, the fight that followed, the overt acts inflicting injuries on the deceased and the three injured witnesses, and the medical corroboration of each witness's injuries. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The accused, as aggressors who trespassed into the house armed with deadly weapons to question the inmates about worship at the disputed property and struck the deceased on the head, a vital part of the body, acted with premeditation and the intention to cause injuries likely to cause death. The case did not fall under Section 304 Part II or any Exception to Section 300; the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was correct even though death occurred some days after the assault. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentences (life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000 each, six months and one year) affirmed; appellants on bail to surrender before the Sessions Court within two weeks, failing which the Sessions Court is to take steps to apprehend them; pending applications disposed of.