Baba BalakNath

When sec. 304 part II applies instead of sec. 302 of I.P.C. = whether that itself would be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The injuries found on the person of the deceased, as quoted in the preceding paragraph of the judgment, shows presence of only a small contusion of the size of 2 cm x 1 cm on the xiphisternum and the underlying bone was also found to be normal. It is well settled that intention is always lodged in the mind of the accused but, to gather the intention one of the relevant factors which the court looks into is the nature of injury inflicted on the deceased. In our opinion, from the nature of injuries found on the person of the deceased it cannot safely be said that the accused assaulted the deceased with intention to cause such injury so as to cause death. It appears to us that the accused persons were upset by the poor quality of food cooked by the deceased and, therefore, assaulted him. The nature of injury or the weapon used do not suggest that the accused assaulted him with the intention of causing death. However, we are of the opinion that the accused knew that the injury inflicted by them is likely to cause death. Hence, in our opinion, the accused shall be liable to be convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that sentence of 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.50,000/- each shall meet the ends of justice. Each of the accused shall deposit the fine amount within three months failing which they shall suffer imprisonment for a further period of one year. Out of the fine amount the appellants shall be paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40507 Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1624 OF 2008 Swarn Kaur …. Appellant VERSUS Gurmukh Singh and Ors. …. Respondents J U D G M E N T Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of … Continue reading →