Intention To Cause Death Immaterial If Prosecution Proves Ingredients Of "Thirdly" Of Section 300 IPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that once the prosecution establishes the existence of three ingredients forming part of "thirdly" in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the accused part to cause death.The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka was considering a criminal appeal against an order dated July 18, 2016 passed by the Rajasthan High Court ("impugned order").By the impugned order, the High Court while maintaining the conviction u/s 147, 364, 201 and 329/149 of IPC, had brought down the conviction u/s 302, IPC to Part II of Section 304 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The fine amount was not disturbed.The 5 respondents were the accused(s) who were prosecuted u/s 147, 364, 302/149, 201 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.While allowing the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the order passed by the Session's Court, the bench observed that, "We are constrained to observe that the High Court adopted an easy method of accepting the only contention canvassed that the offence made out was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As noticed earlier, the High Court ignored that there were injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. The High Court did not notice that all the elements of "thirdly" in Section 300 were established."Factual BackgroundWhile the deceased ("Balveer Singh") was walking towards his house with PW 1 ("Vijay Singh") from the railway station on October 5, 2005 they were pushed into a Tata Sumo by the accused(s). The accused(s) stopped the vehicle in an open field, banged and started assaulting the deceased. When they noticed a light of a vehicle approaching the place, they put the deceased and Vijay Singh in the vehicle and took the deceased to the house of a doctor. After noticing the deceased's serious condition, the doctor advised the accused(s) to take the deceased to Hanumangarh. While they were on their way, the wheel of the vehicle got punctured and noticed that the deceased had died. The accused took out the body of Balveer Singh from the vehicle and smashed his face by using pieces of bricks lying nearby, so that it could not be identified. Thereafter, they threw the deceased's body to the canal and threw the clothes into it by attaching bricks to it. The Sessions Court convicted the accused(s) for offences u/s 147, 364, 302/149, 201 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 149 of IPC. For the other offences, lesser punishments were imposed. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. For the offence punishable under Sections 302, the accused were directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. They were also directed to pay a fine for other offences. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was directed to be paid to the widow of the deceased.Aggrieved the accused(s) had approached the High Court. The High Court while maintaining accused(s) conviction u/s 147, 364, 201 and 329/149 of IPC, had brought down the conviction u/s 302, IPC to Part II of Section 304 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The fine amount was not disturbed.Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Top Court.Contentions Of Counsels Advocate Manish K Bishnoi, appearing for the appellant had contended that the injuries on the deceased's person were on vital parts of his body. It was also his submission that the deceased's 6th to 10th ribs were found to be fractured and right lung was ruptured and that there was an injury to his liver. He also submitted that the High Court proceeded on erroneous footing that there were no injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. He further submitted that none of the exceptions to Section 300 of IPC were applicable. He also pointed out that before throwing the body of the deceased into a canal, his face was completely smashed by the accused. He submitted that "thirdly" in Section 300 of IPC was applicable. Advocate Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, representing the accused(s) submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that objects like iron rod and sticks were used to assault the deceased. He submitted that no weapons were used to attack the deceased and that there was no intention on the accused's part to kill the deceased. He thus submitted that the High Court had taken the correct view that the offence punishable u/s Section 302 of culpable homicide amounting to murder was not made out.Supreme Court's Analysis To decide the issue as to whether the case will be covered by "thirdly" in Section 300, the bench in the judgement authored by Justice AS Oka relied on the judgement in Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab 1958 SCR 1495. Relying on the same in which it was observed that, "It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause the injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary...

Intention To Cause Death Immaterial If Prosecution Proves Ingredients Of "Thirdly" Of Section 300 IPC: Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Tags