Murder Case - Head Injury Is Vital; Mere Failure To Notice Fracture Won't Take Case Out Of Sec 302 IPC: Supreme Court

The mere fact that no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code when the deceased died due to head injury, the Supreme Court observed while convicting a murder accused.The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the vital part of the body for attracting Section 302 IPC.In this case, the accused were convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court. Partly allowing the appeal, the Allahabad High Court modified the conviction to Section 326 IPC(grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means). The High Court had noted that the deceased died after six days and that no fracture on the head of the deceased was found. In appeal before the Apex Court, the State contended that the said reasoning given by the High Court while converting the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC is perverse.The bench, referring to the evidence on record, noted that the High Court did not consider the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report which mentioned that the head injury was fatal and because of said injuries the deceased died. The court added that merely because the deceased died after six days could not have been the ground to set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to convert it to Section 326 IPC. The bench observed:"One another reason given by the High Court to convert the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC is 9 that no fracture on the head was found. However, it is required to be noted that the deceased died because of the internal injuries. As per the postmortem report and the medical evidence head injury is found. Head injury no.1 is reproduced hereinabove. As per the deposition of Dr. P.R. Mishra – PW8, who conducted the postmortem, on opening of the brain menages, he found brain congested, subdural hematoma over both temporal lobes. Therefore, merely because no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 IPC when the deceased died due to head injury no.1. As observed hereinabove causing injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the vital part of the body and therefore a clear case of Section 302 IPC has been established and proved. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC respectively"Observing thus, the bench restored the Trial Court judgment convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. We fail to appreciate how the case would fall under Section 326 IPC when the deceased actually died due to grievous hurt and the injuries were on the vital part of the body – head, the bench added.Case nameState of UP vs Jai DuttCitation2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72Case no./DateCrA 37 OF 2022 | 19 Jan 2022CoramJustices MR Shah and BV NagarathnaCounselSr. Adv Rana Mukherjee for appellant, Sr. Adv Salman Khurshid for respondentsCaseLawMerely Because No Fracture Was Noticed And/Or Found Cannot Take The Case Out Of Section 302 IPC When Deceased Died Due To Head Injury: Supreme CourtClick here to Read/Download Judgment

Murder Case - Head Injury Is Vital; Mere Failure To Notice Fracture Won't Take Case Out Of Sec 302 IPC: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Murder Case - Head Injury Is Vital; Mere Failure To Notice Fracture Won't Take Case Out Of Sec 302 IPC: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers