Oral Judgment:
Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.50/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 31.08.2024 by which the accused Sagar Shankar Kamble is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under:-
Deceased Babu @ Rajesh Ganesh Gupta and the accused were working together as labourers in the cement shop of Lukkad at Pulgaon. They were also residing in the same locality at Pulgaon. On 18.09.2020 they both went to Amravati and stayed at the house of deceased Sarita. Both returned on the next day at their houses. At about 8.00 a.m. when deceased was present in the house brother of the accused Harish Kamble came at the house of deceased and asked him to join him to go to the shop of their employer to unload the cement bags from a vehicle. At about 10.00 a.m. deceased left the house of the accused to proceed to their work. At about 10.00 to 10.30 a.m. mother of the deceased namely Shanta Ganesh Gupta heard the shouts. Rushed to the spot of incident and saw that accused was giving repeated blows on the person of the deceased. Though informant made an attempt to save her son but she was threatened. The alleged incident was also witnessed by the independent eye witnesses namely Dheeraj Babusingh Thakur, Akash Bajrangsingh Thakur and Rakesh Talwade who caught the accused and took him to the side but the accused thrown the knife into adjoining stream and fled away.
3. In the meantime, the police arrived at the spot of incident and found that deceased was already dead. Dead body of the deceased was referred for the postmortem examination at Rural Hospital, Pulgaon. The spot panchanama was drawn in presence of panch. Investigating Officer collected blood stains with the help of forensic team and also seized some articles like pair of chappals from the spot of incident. On the basis of the report lodged by the mother of the deceased, the crime came to be registered against the accused.
4. After registration of the crime the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest panchanama. He also forwarded the requisition to the Medical Officer for postmortem examination. The accused was arrested on 19.09.2020. His clothes were seized in presence of the panch. Clotted blood stain was found on his leg which was also collected. Relevant statements were recorded. On the basis of the statement of the accused the incriminating article knife was recovered. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused.
5. After committal of the case to the court of Sessions learned trial Judge framed the charge vide Exh.4. In support of the prosecution case, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses which are as follows:-
| (i) | PW-1 | Shanta Ganeshprasad Gupta | Exh.10 | Mother of the deceased Informant |
| (ii) | PW-2 | Akash Bajrangsingh Thakur | Exh.16 | eyewitness |
| (iii) | PW-3 | Dheeraj Babusingh Thakur | Exh.20 | eyewitness |
| (iv) | PW-4 | Ashok Pundlikrao Chaudhary | Exh.23 | Panch |
| (v) | PW-5 | Anil Madhukar Satone | Exh.45 | Head constable |
| (vi) | PW-6 | Bhagawat Pandurang Hajare | Exh.50 | ASI |
| (vii) | PW-7 | Pravin Chokhaji Sahare | Exh.54 | Head Constable carrier |
| (viii) | PW-8 | Dr. Sandip Prabhakarrao Akare | Exh.60 | Medical Officer |
| (ix) | PW-9 | Ravindra Manohar Gaikwad | Exh.72 | Investigating Officer |
| (x) | PW-10 | Narendra Kisanchand Bajaj | Exh.85 | Photographer |
| (xi) | PW-11 | Mukesh Wandile | Exh.95 | Police Constable |
| (xii) | PW-12 | Pradip Sahakate | Exh.96 | Police Constable |
| (xiii) | PW-13 | Sapna Niranjane | Exh.110 | Investigating Officer |
5(ii) Requisition to Medical Officer for medical examination of informant Exh.66, Medical certificate of informant Exh.67, Requisition to Medical Officer to collect blood stain found on leg of the accused Exh.68, Medical Certificate of accused Exh.69, Requisition to Medical Officer to obtain samples of accused Exh. 70, General Diary Details Exh.111, Arrest form Exh.112, CA reports Exh.118 to 122, Extract of Muddemal Register Exh.124.
5(iii) All the incriminating evidence is put to the accused to obtain his explanation regarding incriminating evidence by recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the accused is of total denial and of false implication.
6. After hearing learned APP, learned counsel for the accused and after appreciating the evidence, learned trial Court held the accused guilty and convicted him as afore-stated. Hence the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel Mr. T.A. Mirza for the accused who submitted that the entire genesis of the crime is suppressed by the prosecution. There was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. On the contrary, on earlier day, deceased and accused went together at Amravati and returned back. During the sudden fight sudden quarrel, on provocation by the deceased, the alleged incident has occurred and therefore, the case of the accused would cover under exception (1) as well as exception (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Therefore, the case of the accused would cover under Section 304 Part II culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The learned trial Judge ignored the evidence on record which specifically shows that during sudden fight sudden quarrel deceased has sustained the injuries. There was no intention on the part of the accused. Considering the admissions given by the PW-1/mother of the deceased, it is crystal clear that she is not the eye witness of the incident as there was no opportunity for her to see the incident. Other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. For all above these reasons, the conviction would not sustain.
8. Per contra learned APP Mrs Dhote vehemently submitted that besides the evidence of PW-1/Mother of the deceased Shantabai Gupta there are eye witnesses namely Akash Thakur and Dheeraj Thakur who substantiates the prosecution case. The postmortem report shows there were in all 20 injuries on the person of the deceased and therefore, it would not cover any exception as far as the grave and sudden provocation is concerned. There is absolutely no evidence that deceased has done certain act which provoked the accused and he could not control his anger and heat of anger he has given the blows. The defence of sudden fight sudden quarrel is also not available to the accused considering 20 injuries are found on the person of the deceased. Thus, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, appeal being devoid of merit liable to be dismissed.
9. First and foremost question which requires to be determined is whether the death of the deceased Babu @ Rajesh is homicidal one? To prove the fact that the death of the deceased is homicidal one, prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Sandip Akare vide Exh.60 whose evidence shows that on 19.09.2020 he received a requisition letter from Pulgaon Police Station Exh.61 to conduct postmortem on the dead body of Rajesh @ Babu Ganesh Gupta. He carried the postmortem examination and found following injuries on the person of deceased:-
| (i) | Deep and sharp wound of size 15 cm in length, 5 cm. in middle, 2 cm. on left side and 3 cm. at right side and 5 cm. deep on right side of the neck from midline of neck anteriorly to cervical vertebra on posterior side |
| (ii) | Closed lacerated wound (CLW) of size 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. on chest, on 5th rib, 26 cm. below from first wound of right side; |
| (iii) | CLW of size 1 x 1 x 1 cm. on right side chest on 6th rib, 2 cm. below from second wound; |
| (iv) | CLW of size 1 x 1 x 1 cm. on liver area, 5 cm. below and left side of third wound. |
| (v) | CLW of size 1 x 1x 1 cm. on left side of abdomen, 7 cm. below and left side from fourth wound; |
| (vi) | CLW of size 1 x 1 x 1 cm. on left side of abdomen, 7 cm. below and left side from fifth wound |
| (vii) | Deep and sharp wound of size 3 x 1 x 1 cm. cavity deep, 1 cm. below and left side from 6th wound; |
| (viii) | CLW of size 1 x 1 x 1 cm. on left side of abdomen, 3 cm. below from seventh wound; |
| (ix) | CLW of size 1 x 1 x1 cm. on left side of abdomen below seventh wound; |
| (x) | CLW of size 1.5 x 1 cm fascia deep left thigh area, 15 cm. below ninth wound. |
| (xi) | CLW of size 3 x 1 cm. muscle deep on left thigh area, 8 cm. below from tenth wound; |
| (xii) | Abrasion of size 0.5 x 0.5 cm. on left knee joint area; |
| (xiii) | Abrasion of size 2 x 1 cm. on left elbow joint area; |
| (xiv) | CLW of size 2 x 2 cm. muscle deep on left elbow joint, 2 cm. lateral from wound No.13; |
| (xv) | CLW of size 1 x 1 x 0.5 cm. on left arm; |
| (xvi) | CLW of size 1 x 1 x 0.5 cm. on left arm, 3 cm. laterally to wound No.15; |
| (xvii) | CLW of size 1 x 1 x 0.5 cm. on left chest area, 6 cm. left laterally to left nipple of chest ; |
| (xviii) | CLW of size 1.5 x 1 cm., bone deep on area between two scapula ; |
| (xix) | Abrasion of size 1 x 1.5 cm. on left back area, 12 cm. below 18th wound ; |
| (xx) | Abrasion of size 2 x 1 cm. on left buttock area, 15 cm. below wound No.19. |
11. According to him, cause of death is due to deep wound (homicidal) bleeding to injury to large vessel i.e. carotid artery and subclavian vein i.e. severe hemorrhage i.e. hypovolumic shock and associated infract of vital organ i.e. brain. Accordingly, he issued postmortem report Exh.62. Thus, as per his evidence the death is caused due to deep wound on vital part of the body.
12. His evidence further discloses that on 05.10.2020 he received query letter from Police Station Pulgaon Exh.63 requesting him to examine the weapon and give his opinion about possibilities of injuries with the weapon. He received the weapon in sealed condition. On examination of the weapon, he opined that the injuries to the deceased Rajesh Gupta were possible by the said knife. Accordingly, he gave his opinion Exh.64. He specifically stated that the knife was not stained with blood. He identified the knife which was seen by him.
13. Though PW-8 is cross-examined, however, nothing incriminating is brought on record to shatter the evidence adduced by him. He denied the suggestion that such type of the injuries are possible by accident if deceased falls on iron bars twice or thrice kept for construction. He voluntarily stated that injury Nos.1 and 7 are not possible even by fall on iron bars, but other injuries may be possible by fall on iron bars.
Thus, as far as the medical evidence is concerned, it remained intact as to the cause of death.
14. Now it is well settled that the evidence of Medical Officer is not only an opinion evidence but also his evidence is in the nature of direct evidence as he had an opportunity to see the injuries on the person of the deceased. A medical witness, who performs a postmortem examination, is a witness of a fact though he also gives an opinion on certain aspects of the case. This proposition of law has been stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitraand Vs. Sunil Chandra Roy and another, reported in 1960 SCR (3) 1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “the value of a medical witness is not merely a check upon the testimony of eye witnesses; it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. If a person is shot, at close range, the marks of tatooing found by the medical witness would show that the range was small, quite apart from any other opinion of his. Similarly, fractures of bones, depth and size of the wounds would show the nature of the weapon used. It is wrong to say that it is only opinion evidence; it is often direct evidence of the facts found upon the victim’s person.” Thus, the testimony of medical witness is very important and it can be safely accepted. The evidence adduced by the Medical Officer corroborated by the inquest panchanama shows that the deceased died homicidal death.
15. In the recent judgment also, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 402, dealt with the evidentiary value of the medical evidence and observed that the evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eye witnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. It has been reiterated by this Court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged.
16. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the death of the deceased is homicidal one.
17. The prosecution case further relied upon the direct evidence in the nature of eye witnesses PW-1/Shanta Ganeshprasad Gupta mother of the deceased examined vide Exh.10, PW-2 Akash Thakur examined vide Exh.16 and PW-3 Dheeraj Thakur Exh.20 another eye witness of the incident. The evidence of PW-1 mother of the deceased, who has lodged the FIR, disclosed that deceased was her son, who was also known as Babu. Accused and deceased were not only residing in the same area but they were working together. Brother of the accused was also working along with them in one cement shop. Undisputedly, on the earlier day of the incident, deceased and accused had been to Amravati and returned back at Pulgaon. On the day of incident i.e. on 19.09.2020 when deceased was at his home, brother of the accused came to take him to attend the work. However, deceased told him that he will come later on and after sometime deceased left the home and went at the house of accused. After sometime PW-1 mother of the deceased heard the shouts, therefore, she went out side the house towards the house of the accused and witnesses that accused was giving blows by knife on the person of her son. She specifically stated that accused gave the blows by knife on his neck, chest and abdomen. On her intervention, she was kicked by the accused. Therefore, she fallen on the ground and sustained injury. At the relevant time, PW-2/Akash, PW-3/Dheeraj and one Rakesh came there. They caught accused but accused rescued himself from their clutches and fled away. Thereafter, police arrived at the spot and deceased was removed to the hospital, but he was declared dead. Her evidence further shows that her daughter disclosed to her that on 18.09.2020 when accused and deceased had been to Amravati on her daughters house, there was a quarrel between them. She has lodged the report at Pulgaon Police Station which is at Exh.11 and FIR at Exh.12. She has identified the knife, clothes of the deceased as well as clothes of the accused.
18. To corroborate her version, prosecution has examined PW-2/Akash vide Exh.16. His evidence is only to the extent that accused is residing near to his house. The alleged incident took place at about 9.30 a.m. He heard the shouting of the mother of the deceased. Therefore, he went out side the house and witnessed that accused was assaulting the deceased. But he was not able to witness the incident, therefore, he left the place. He specifically stated that he has witnessed that accused was assaulting the deceased. This witness is partly supported the prosecution case. During his cross-examination, an attempt was made to show that deceased was friend of this PW-2. His further cross-examination discloses that deceased was in habit of drinking liquor. He used to be under the influence of liquor all the time.
19. PW-3/Dheeraj Thakur examined vide Exh.20 is the another eye witness whose evidence shows that deceased was residing behind his house, whereas, accused was residing in front of his house. On 19.09.2020 at about 10.30 a.m. he was in the house. At the relevant time, PW-2/Akash approached to him and disclose to him that accused is assaulting the deceased. Therefore, he along with Akash went at the spot of incident. They have witnessed that deceased was lying on the ground and accused was giving blows by knife. Mother of the deceased attempting to intervene but she was kicked by the accused. Therefore, she fallen on the ground and sustained injury. His evidence further shows that they also tried to intervene but they were threatened. However they caught him but he rescued himself and fled away. Deceased was died on the spot itself.
20. During his cross-examination, defence has brought on record that from the house of the deceased the house of the accused is not visible. However, he specifically stated that the house of the accused is visible from the courtyard of the house of the deceased. He further admits that the accused and the deceased were visiting each others houses. An attempt was made to show that he is not an eye witness and he reached at the spot subsequently. However, PW-2/Akash specifically stated that when he reached at the spot, he witnessed that accused was assaulting the deceased. He has identified the weapon knife. Thus, the evidence of PW-2/Akash and PW-3/Deeraj is consistent as far as the assault on the deceased by the accused is concerned.
21. Reverting back to the evidence of PW-1 mother of the deceased the cross-examination of PW-1 shows that the houses of the PW-2/Akash and PW-3/Dheeraj are near to the house of accused. Her house is situated near to the house of PW-3/Dheeraj. There is some open space in front of her house. She denied that from her house, the house of the accused is not visible. Her cross-examination further shows that on earlier day, accused and deceased had been to Amravati at her daughter’s house and they stayed there during the night. In the morning, they returned back. Some omissions are also brought on record like she has not disclosed that accused has kicked her and she sustained the injuries. She specifically stated that she has witnessed the knife when accused was assaulting the deceased. Thus, the evidence of PW-1/Shanta Gupta mother of the deceased, PW-2 /Akash and PW-3/Dheeraj is consistent as to the role of the accused regarding assault on the deceased is concerned. Despite detailed cross-examination, defence failed to shatter the prosecution evidence. An attempt was made to show that during the sudden fight sudden quarrel, the accused has assaulted the deceased and thereby case of the accused would fall under the exception sudden fight sudden quarrel.
22. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that the entire evidence on record sufficiently shows that there was no previous enmity between the deceased and the accused. Whatever happened was in a spur of moment and the accused could not control his anger and in a heat of anger, during sudden fight sudden quarrel, deceased was assaulted by the accused. Therefore, at the most, the act of the accused would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
23. The prosecution further placed reliance on the circumstantial evidence like evidence of PW-4/Ashok Choudhary who acted as a panch on various panchanama. His evidence shows that he is serving in Nagar Parishad, Pulgaon. On the requisition of the police, his superior asked him to act as a panch along with another panch Vasanta Rumane. Therefore, they went to the Police Station. Police took them at the spot of incident. Spot was situated on cement road near the house of accused. There was one stream (Nalla). The dead body of the deceased was lying there. Foot wears also lying there. They have witnessed the blood stains. Police have seized blood stains, simple soil, blood stains soil, blood stains from the spot and drawn the panchanama Exh.27. The photographs of the spot of incident were also obtained.
24. Thereafter they were taken by the police in the Government Hospital wherein inquest panchanama was drawn. He witnessed the injuries on neck, abdomen, chest, elbows, waist and legs of the deceased. Accordingly, inquest panchanama Exh.28 was drawn. He also acted as a panch on the arrest panchanama of the accused. At the time of the arrest, the clothes which were on the person of the deceased were seized in his presence vide Exh.30. The blood samples of the accused were brought to the police station by the police constable which were also seized in his presence. On 20.09.2020 he and another panch were again called by the police by issuing notice to them. On that day, clothes of the deceased were seized by the police in their presence as well as blood samples, nail samples, hair samples of the deceased were also seized in their presence by drawing panchanama Exh.34.
25. His evidence further shows that on 23.09.2020 again police called him as well as another panch. In their presence, accused was brought from the lockup. In their presence, accused was inquired and accused made the statement that he is ready to show the weapon which was used by him. Accordingly, his memorandum statement was recorded in their presence Exh.35. The said memorandum was reduced into writing bears their signatures. Thereafter accused took them at the spot of incident and disclosed that he thrown the knife in a stream. The said stream was near to the spot of incident. The knife was searched in the said stream with the help of sweepers of Nagar Parishad. The knife was found during the search. The accused confirmed it is the same knife. Accordingly, it was seized by the police in their presence by drawing panchanama Exh.36. On the same day, blood samples of the accused were also seized vide panchanama Exh.37. The photographs of the spot of incident are identified by him which are articles A-1 to A-12 and A-13 to A-17. The photographs were obtained when the accused has shown the spot where the knife was thrown. The said photographs are at Articles B-4 to B-8. The knife is article MO-1. He also identified the clothes of accused, one night pant article MO-6 and blakish brown colour T shirt MO-7. He also identified the clothes of deceased T shirt MO-2, bluish colour night pant MO-3. One brown colour baniyan Article MO-4 and black colour underwear MO-5.
26. Despite the cross-examination at length as far as drawing of the spot panchanama and the recovery of knife is concerned, no incriminating material is brought on record to shatter the evidence of the prosecution as to the recovery of weapon. On the contrary, the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Akare and the evidence of PW-4 is consistent as to the blood stain of the said knife. Evidence of both these witnesses shows that there were no blood stains on the knife.
27. PW-5/Anil Satone is the another material witness who was part of the forensic squad working in the office of Superintendent of Police Wardha. As per his evidence, he has obtained the training at Kalina in Forensic Lab. On the request of Investigating Officer he went at the spot of incident. He collected the blood stains from the spot. He also collected the traces of the foot wears on the cloth. He also collected blood stain soil and simple soil and all the samples were handed over to the PSO Mr. Gaikwad. His cross-examination shows that while collecting the dry blood stains the cloth piece is used by pouring distilled water on it.
28. PW-6/Bhagwat Hajare was a carrier, who has handed over the incriminating articles to the CA Office, Nagpur on 06.10.2020. Exh.52 is the forwarding letter addressed to the Forensic Lab.
29. PW-7/Pravin Sahare is the another carrier, who has also handed over the samples to the Forensic Lab on 07.10.2021.
30. PW-9/Ravindra Gaikwad is the Investigating Officer who has carried out the part investigation. He has narrated about the investigation carried out by him and collection of the samples from the spot. His cross-examination shows that alleged spot of incident was near to the house of the accused and near the stream.
31. PW-10/Narendra Bajaj is the photographer, who has obtained the photographs of the spot and at the time of seizure of the weapon.
32. PW-13/Sapna again is the Investigating Officer, who narrated about the investigation carried out by her. Despite the arduous cross-examination nothing incriminating is brought on record. Her cross-examination shows that the alleged spot of incident was in a residential locality. She has placed on record the various station diary entries to substantiate her evidence as to the investigation carried out by her.
33. Exh.118 to Exh.122 are the CA reports. Exh.118 is in respect of the analysis of the blood samples of accused and his blood group was analyzed as ‘B’. Exh.119 is in respect of one sealed cloth parcel and knife. Blood stain was found of blood group ‘O’ on the said cloth. The blood group of the deceased was analyzed as ‘O’ as per Exh.120. As per Exh.122 blood group ‘O’ which was of deceased was found on cotton strip used for collecting the blood stains from the spot. Exh.2 Cotton strip used for collecting the blood samples from the spot. Exhs.3 and 4 Cotton strip used for collecting the traces of foot wear. Exhs.5 and 6 are simple soil and the soil collected from the spot. Exhs. 7 and 8 are the foot wears seized from the spot. Exhs.10, 11 and 12 are the clothes of the deceased. Exhs.13 and 14 are the clothes of the accused. All these articles were having blood stains of blood group ‘O’ which was of the deceased.
34. On appreciation of evidence, it is not disputed that the alleged incident has taken place on the road and witnessed by PW-1 to PW-3. Their presence at the spot was established on the basis of the evidence. Though learned counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that the presence of the mother of the deceased at the spot is doubtful and she arrived at the spot after the incident, this contention is not sustainable in the light of the evidence of PW-2/Akash and PW-3/Dheeraj. Both have consistently stated that at the time of incident, PW-1/Shanta was present at the spot of incident. The another contention of learned counsel for the accused that the alleged incident which took place near the house of the accused is not visible from the house of the deceased. However, PW-3/Dheeraj specifically stated that the spot is visible from the courtyard of the house of the deceased. PW-1/Shanta specifically stated that after hearing the shouts she came out of the house and thereafter she witnessed the incident. Therefore, submission made by learned counsel for the accused that she is not the eye witness of the incident is not sustainable as the evidence on record shows that deceased and accused are residing in the same locality. There is a distance of 5 to 6 houses between the house of the accused and the deceased. PW-1/Shanta specifically stated that after hearing shouts, she came out of the house and from her courtyard, she witnessed that accused was assaulting the deceased. Her presence is substantiated by PW-2/ Akash and PW-3/Dheeraj. Though PW-2 /Akash supported partly but as far as the incident as to the assault by the accused is concerned, which was supported by him.
35. PW-3/Dheeraj has corroborated the version of PW-1/ Shanta. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 who are eye witnesses of the incident is consistently corroborating to each other. The evidence of PW-1 that on her intervention she was assaulted by the accused is not only corroborated by PW-3/ Dheeraj but it is also corroborated by medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. Sandip Akare who specifically stated that on 19.09.2020 he examined PW-1/Shanta and found injuries on her person i.e Abrasion, size 1.5 x 0.5 cm. on left clavicular area ; and Swelling, size 2 x 1 cm, on left shoulder area.
36. Except the denial, there is no cross-examination as far as injuries on the person of PW-1/Shanta is concerned. Thus, prosecution has established that it was the accused who has given repeated blows on the person of the deceased and the deceased has sustained 20 injuries on his person which were antemortem in nature. The incriminating evidence regarding blood stains on his clothes was also not explained by the accused.
37. Learned counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that the alleged incident has occurred during the sudden fight sudden quarrel, therefore, the case of the accused would cover under exception (1) and exception (4) under Section 300 of the IPC. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surain Singh vs State Of Punjab reported in AIR 2017 SC 1904 and Premchand vs The State Of Maharashtra reported at AIR 2023 SC 1487.
38. Admittedly, deceased and the accused were working together. The evidence on record shows that there was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. The evidence further shows that the deceased and the accused on earlier day had been to Amravati at the house of sister of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 shows that she received the information from her daughter that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. The evidence further shows that on the day of incident, brother of the accused had been to the house of the deceased to call him. However, deceased has not went along with him. But, subsequently, he left the house and alleged incident has occurred.
39. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the act of the accused would cover under the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The culpable homicide is defined in Section 299 of IPC and it is genus. Whereas, the murder defined in Section 300 of IPC is a specie. Under Section 299 of IPC, whoever causes death with an intention or knowledge specified in that Section, commits offence of culpable homicide. However, since culpable homicide is only genus, it includes two forms; one is a graver offence which amounts to ‘murder’ and lesser one which does not amount to ‘murder’. It can be seen that, though the offence of culpable homicide is defined, the said provision does not provide any punishment for that offence as such and for the purpose of punishment, the Court has to examine facts and find out whether the offence falls or does not fall under the definition of murder under Section 300 of the IPC. In view of this scheme, therefore, every act of homicide falls within the definition of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC. Section 300 of IPC on the one hand, mentions that a homicide is murder. However, in that section five exceptions have been given and these exceptions lay down the circumstances in which the act causing death is not murder even though it may have been done with the intention or knowledge specified in Section 300 of the IPC. Therefore, it has to be seen; (1) what was the intention or knowledge with which the act was done and what are circumstances in which it was done, (2) if it is established that the offence is culpable homicide, but it does not fall within the definition of murder and if it falls under any of the exceptions to that Section, the offence is punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Once, it is held that the offence falls under Section 304 of the IPC, the punishment differs, depending upon whether the death is caused with an intention or only with the knowledge and, therefore, if the element of intention exists, the offence is punishable under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC, otherwise, the offence falls under Part-II of Section 304 of the IPC.
40. In the case of Anbazhagan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 857 wherein while considering the aspect of “intention” and “knowledge”, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the word "intent" is derived from the word archery or aim. The “act” attempted to must be with “intention” of killing a man. Intention, which is a state of mind, can never be precisely proved by direct evidence as a fact; it can only be deduced or inferred from other facts which are proved. The intention may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events previous or subsequent to the incident or occurrence, on admission. Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case. There are various relevant circumstances from which the intention can be gathered. Some relevant considerations are that 1. the nature of the weapon used; 2. the place where the injuries were inflicted; 3. the nature of the injuries caused, and 4. the opportunity available which the accused gets.
41. By referring its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Mathri Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 986, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the word “intent” by its etymology, seems to have metaphorical allusion to archery, and implies “aim” and thus connotes not a casual or merely possible result foreseen perhaps as a not improbable incident, but not desired but rather connotes the one object for which the effort is made and thus has reference to what has been called the dominant motive, without which, the action would not have been taken. While distinguishing between “motive”, “intention” and “knowledge”, “motive” is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote different things. Even in some English decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this had led to a certain amount of confusion. A man’s intention has to be inferred from what he does. The degree of guilt depends upon intention and the intention to be inferred must be gathered from the facts proved. Sometimes an act is committed which would not in an ordinary case inflict injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Proof of such knowledge throws light upon his intention. On the other hand, awareness is termed as “knowledge”. The knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing of an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Except in cases where mens rea is not required in order to prove that a person had certain knowledge, he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow, the knowledge that specified consequences would result or could result by doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. If an act is done by a man with the knowledge that certain consequences may follow or will follow, it does not necessarily mean that he intended such consequences and acted with such intention. Intention requires something more than a mere foresight of the consequences. It requires a purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.
42. This aspect is further considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent judgment of Sitaram Kuchhbedia vs. Vimal Rana and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.1837-38 of 2011 and 1835-36 of 2011 decided on 23.02.2026 reported in MANU/SC/0179/2026 and observed that “to appreciate the conceptual as well as practical distinction between these two offences in a clearer perspective, it may be useful to bear in mind the overlapping yet distinct contours of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The relationship between the two provisions, often described as one of genus and species, may be illustratively understood in the manner indicated below:-
“IMAGE”
43. At this stage, it requires to determine whether the accused has committed an act which has caused death of anther i.e. to say whether the case involves a homicide. If such casual connection between the act of the accused and the death is established, inquiry then proceeds to the second stage, i.e. to say, whether the acts so committed amounts to ‘culpable homicide’ within the meaning of Section 299 of the IPC.
44. If the answer to this question is in affirmative, the Court must then enter upon the third stage of inquiry i.e. whether the facts proved by the prosecution to bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC which defined murder. If the case does not fall within any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under either Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC depending upon whether the case attracts the second or the third clause of Section 299 of the IPC.
45. With the above proposition, if the evidence in the present case is taken into consideration and the attending circumstances, admittedly, evidence shows that there was no previous enmity between the deceased and accused. It also shows that accused has caused in all 20 injuries on the person of the deceased and i.e. also on vital part of the body. The injuries are caused by the knife which shows that there was a preparation by the accused to cause injuries to the deceased. Medical evidence on record shows that total 20 injuries caused to the deceased. Injury No.1 was deep and sharp wound of size 15 cm in length, 5 cm. in middle, 2 cm. on left side and 3 cm. at right side and 5 cm. deep on right side of the neck from midline of neck anteriorly to cervical vertebra on posterior side and injury No.7 deep and sharp wound of size 3 x 1 x 1 cm. cavity deep, 1 cm. below and left side from 6th wound. On internal examination of the dead body, Medical Officer noticed brain infraction due to severe hemorrhage, deep cut wound on the neck, bleeding to injury large vessel, right carotid artery on right subclavian vein bleeding to severe hemorrhage which resulted into the death. Multiplicity of the nature of the injuries with repetitive blows on the vital part of the body i.e. neck clearly demonstrate a concerted and assault with intention. The cumulative effect of which brings the case within the ambit of murder. Determination of intention being the state of mind required to be gathered from the circumstances. It must necessarily be gathered from the cumulative effect of the circumstances proved on record, including the nature of the weapon used, part of the body targeted manner of the assault and number of injuries and the circumstances surrounding the occurrence. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of A.P. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 444 wherein it is observed that “, therefore, the Court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters-plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the specturm, there may be cases of murder where the Accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, amongst other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the Accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the Accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may”.
46. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that evidence on record particularly the consistent testimony of the eye witnesses established that there was no previous enmity but during sudden quarrel the accused has used sharp weapon. Weapon was carried by the accused, the blow was aimed on vital part of the body. The nature of the injury which was caused on neck shows that there was an internal damage to the body sufficient to infer that the force was used by the accused while causing injury. There was no evidence that there was any provocation by the deceased to the accused. Admittedly, accused has taken undue advantage and has acted in cruel and unusual manner and caused 20 injuries on the person of deceased. There is nothing on record to suggest that weapon was picked by the accused casually from the spot. The sequence of events assumes greater significance in view of the circumstance that there was a quarrel on earlier night at Amravati between the deceased and accused at the house of sister of deceased and on the second day, the accused has executed the act.
47. We have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. The deceased suffered number of injuries and two injuries proved to be fatal. The intention of the accused can be gathered from the circumstances that the accused has prepared to assault the deceased and carried knife. He has given forceful blows on the person of the deceased and therefore, prosecution has established that with an intention to cause death of the deceased the accused had given repeated blows on the person of the deceased. Therefore, the case of the accused would not fall under any exception. The intention to cause death can be gathered from a combination of these various circumstances.
48. Learned Trial Court has rightly considered these circumstances and rightly held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. In the result, appeal deserves to be dismissed.
49. In view of the above discussion, Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed. In view of that, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
50. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.