ARUN RAJversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                      [2010] 7 S.C.R. 1


                          ARUN RAJ                                A
                               v.
                UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1123 of 2008)

                        MAY 13, 2010
                                                                   B
 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.)

    Penal Code, 1860/Army Act, 1950:

      s. 302 and s. 69 of Army Act - Court Martial proceeding c
- For trial of offence of murder - Eye-witness to the incident
- Dying declaration made to another witness - Offence
alleged to be result of an incident occurring a day prior to the
incident - General Court Martial finding the accused guilty of
the offence - Sentenced to life imprisonment and dismissal
                                                                 0
from service - Conviction ano sentence confirmed by
Confirming Authority, Chief of Army Staff and in writ petition
by High Court - On appeal, plea that offence falls under
Exception I to s. 300 /PC and since the accused caused
single stab injury, he was liable to be punished uls. 304 (Part
II) - Held: Conviction u/s. 302 justified - Evidence of the case E
makes it clear that s. 304 (Part II) not attracted - The case
does not fall under Exception I to s.300 - Once intention to
cause death is proved, infliction of single or multiple blows
becomes irrelevant. _                                            ....
                                                                   r
     Penal Code, 1860:

     s. 300 Exception I - Applicability of - Discussed.

     s. 304 (Part II) - Applicability of - Discussed.
                                                                   G
     Doctrines:

     'Doctrine of provocation' - Meaning and applicability of

     Appellant-accused, an army official was charged for
                           1                                       H
    2       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A   having caused death of one of his colleagues (deceased).
    Court Martial proceedings were initiated against him u/s.
    302 IPC r/w Section 69 of Army Act, 1950.

       According to prosecution on the day of the incident
  the accused made complaint to his superior officer that
8
  the deceased and PW3 had abused him. After making the
  complaint, he came to the barrack with a kitchen knife
  concealed in his 'fungi' and stabbed the deceased on the
  right side of his chest, while he was sleeping in the
  barrack on a cot. PW-1 was the eye-witness to the
C incident. General Court Martial found the appellant guilty
  of the charges and sentenced him to 7 years RI and
  dismissed him from service for the offence punishable u/
  s. 69 of Army Act r/w. 302 IPC. On revision, Confirming
  Authority held that once appellant is found guilty of the
D offence of murder, he could be either sentenced to life
  imprisonment or death sentence. General Court Martial,
  accordingly, revising the sentence, sentenced him to life
  imprisonment and dismissal from service. The same was
  confirmed by the Confirming Authority. A petition against
E the same to the Chief of Army Staff u/s. 164 of Army Act
  was rejected.

       Appellant-accused filed a writ petition contending
  that charge framed was vague and that facts of the case
F did not justify punishment of life imprisonment as the
  accused can be punished at the most u/s. 304 (Part-II) and
  not u/s. 302 IPC. High Court dismissed the writ petition.
  Hence the present appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
      HELD: 1.1. The conviction of the appellant for the
  offence under Section 302 IPC is not bad in law. Under
  Exception I to Section 300 IPC, an injury resulting into
  death of the person would not be considered as murder
H when the offender has lost his self-control due to the
      ARUN RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.               3


grave and sudden provocation. The provision itself A
makes it clear by the Explanation provided, that what
would constitute grave and sudden provocation, which
would be enough to prevent the offence from amounting
to murder, is a question of fact. Provocation is an external
stimulus which can result into loss of self-control. Such B
provocation and the resulting reaction need to be
measured from the surrounding circumstances. Here the
provocation must be such as will upset not merely a
hasty, hot tempered and hypersensitive person but also
a person with calm nature and ordinary sense. What i!:1 c
sought by the law by creating the exception is that to take
into consideration situations wherein a person with
normal behavior reacting to the given incidence of
provocation. Thus, the protection extended by the
exception is to the normal person acting normally in the
                                                             0
given situation. [Paras 6 and 16] (20-C; 11-H; 12-A-D]

    Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecution (1942) A.C.
200; Rex v. Lesbini (1914) 3 K.B.1116, referred to.

    1.2. The facts like that there was time lag of 40-45 E
minute after appellant had come from the office of Higher
Officer after complaining and was present with the
appellant in the same barrack without any conversation
between them, that he had got the knife which was sharp
enough to have the knowledge that it might cause death F
of a human being when stabbed, that the knife was
hidden and removed by appellant only when he was
about to stab the deceased, that the appellant stabbed
the deceased on the chest which is a fragile portion of
the body and can cause death when stabbed by sharp G
weapon and also that the eyewitness was unable to link
the abusing and the altercation of the deceased and
appellant to the action of stabbing, rules out the
possibility of the offence being committed due to 'grave
and sudden' provocation. The appellant clearly had time H
to deliberate and plan out the death of the deceased. The
    4      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A   appeal has no merit and the appellant cannot get benefit
    of the Exception I to Section 300 of l.P.C. [Para 8] [74-A-
    E]

         2.1. Essentially the ingredients for bringing an act
    under Part II of Section 304 are:- (i) act is done with the
8
    knowledge that it is likely to cause death, (ii) there is no
    intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury
    as is likely to cause death. The first ingredient is easily
    solved by referring to the weapon used by the appellant
    to strike a knife blow to the appellant. The appellant in
C   this instance has used a kitchen knife. A kitchen knife
    with sharp edges is a dangerous weapon and it is very
    obvious that the appellant was aware that the use of
    such a weapon can cause death or serious bodily injury
    that is likely to cause death. As far as the second
D   ingredient is concerned, there has been no sudden
    altercation which ensued between the appellant and the
    deceased in the present case. The fact that the appellant
    waited till the next day, went on to procure a deadly
    weapon like a kitchen knife and then proceeded to strike
E   a blow on the chest of the appellant when he was
    sleeping, points unerringly towards due deliberation on
    the part of the appellant to avenge his humiliation at the
    hands of the appellant. The nature of weapon used and
    the part of the body where the blow was struck, which
F   was a vital part of the body l'glps in proving beyond
    reasonable doubt, the intention of the appellant to cause
    the death of the deceased. Once these ingredients are
    prc)ved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow
    struck or multiple blows. There is no fixed rule that
G   whenever a single blow is inflicted, Section 302 would not
    be attracted. [Paras10, 11 and 14] [15-D-H; 16-C-G; 19-E]

         State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh (2004) 12 SCC 546;
    Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; Ani/ v. State
    of Haryana (2007) 10 sec 274, relied on.
H
      ARUN RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                  5


     Bhera v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 225; A
Kunhayippu v. State of Kera/a (2000) 10 SCC 307; .
Masumsha Hasansha Musa/man v. State of Maharashtra
(2000) 3 SCC 557; Guljar Hussain v. State of UP. 1993 Supp
(1) SCC 554; K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kera/a
(1999) 3 SCC 309; Pappu v. State of M.P. (2006) 7 SCC 391; B
Muthu v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2007) 12
SCALE 795, distinguished.

     2.2. It is necessary to prove first that there was an
intention of causing bodily injury; and that the injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course C
of nature to cause death. From the evidence on record, it
is very clear that the appellant intended to cause death.
In light of this finding, the evidence on record makes it
clear that Section 304 (Part-II) IPC will not be attracted. In
the present case, there was due deliberation on the part D
of the appellant and he assaulted the deceased a day after
he misbehaved with him. Hence it is not correct to say
that the appellant had no intention to cause death of the
deceased. [Para 15) [19-F-H; 20-A-B)
                                                               E
                     Case Law Reference:
   (1942) A.C. 200           referred to.        Para 7
   (1914) 3 K.B.1116         referred to.        Para 7
   (2000) 10 sec 225         distinguished.      Para 11       F

   (2000) 10 sec 307         distinguished.      Para 11
   (2000) 3 sec 557          distinguished.      Para 11
   1993 Supp (1) sec 554 distinguished.          Para 11       G
   (1999) 3 sec 309          distinguished.      Para 11
   (2006) 1 sec 391          distinguished.      Para 11
   (2007) 12 Scale 795       distinguished.      Para 11
                                                               H
    6       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 7 S.C.R


A       (2004) 12 sec 546         relied on.           Para 11
        AIR 1958 SC 465           relied on.           Para 12
        (2007) 1o sec 214         relied on.           Para 13
B       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1123 of 2008.

        From the Judgment and order dated 25.08.2005 of the
    High Court of Bombay in CRL WP No. 677 of 2000.

c       K.K. Mani, Ankit Swarup and K, Lakshminarayan for the
    Appellant.

         Brijender Chahar, R.Balasubramaniyam, Naresh Kaushik,
    Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra for the Respondent.

D        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       H.L. DATTU, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is limited
  to a particular question only, namely, correctness of the
  conviction of the appellant Arun Raj for an offence under
E Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the propriety of the
  sentence passed thereunder by the Presiding Officer of General
  Court Martial under the Indian Army Act. The short facts are
  these - The appellant joined the Indian Army in the year 1983
  and in the year 1998 he was working as Ex-Signalman (Lance
F Nayak) of 787 (Independent) Air Defence Brigade Signal
  Company. On 22.3.1998, one Mr. S.S.B Rao (PW-4) was the
  Section In-Charge of Operator Section. At about 1 PM, Mr.
  Rao returned from lunch and the appellant reported to him that
  Havildar R.C Tiwari (deceased) and Havildar lnderpal (PW-3)
  abused him by using the word "Gandu". On Mr. Rao making
G an inquiry into the same, they replied in the negative, despite
  the appellant making repeated assertion that they insulted him
  using the said word. The appellant also brought to the
  information of Mr. Rao that in the previous night there was a
  heated discussion between the appellant and the deceased
H and lnderpal, and the matter was reported to the superior
      ARUN RAJ v.. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                    7
               .. [H.L. DATIU, J.]
officer. Paulose (PW-1), after having his lunch, returned to the   A
barrack from the rank mess and he was relaxing in the cot., At
this point of time, he saw the appellant coming towards the
door. He was wearing a half T-shirt and lungi. The cot of the
deceased was near the door and he was sleeping on it. The
appellant took out a knife which was hidden in the lungi and       B
stabbed the deceased on the right side of the chest. On
witnessing the incident, PW-1 was shocked and shouted to the
appellant as to why he did it. On hearing the shout of PW-1,
people came in and gathered immediately. The appellant was
separated by the crowd and the deceased was sent to the            C
hospital where he finally succumbed to the injury. Major Prabal
Datta (PW-9) testified that there was no external injury on the
body of the deceased except the stab injury caused by a knife.

      2. An FIR was lodged at the Dehu Road Police Station
vide CR-26 of 1998 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. D
Thereafter, investigation commenced, during the course of
which the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem and.
an inquest Panchnama was also prepared. On completion of
the investigation, the charge-sheet was prepared against the
appellant/accused and forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate 1st E
Class, Vadgaon Mavai. In the meantime, since the appellant
belonged to the armed forces, court martial proceedings were
initiated under the provisions of the Army Act. Charges were
framed against the appellant under Section 302 read with
Section 69 of the Army Act for committing civil offence, i.e., F
knowingly causing the death of the deceased on 22.3.1998. On
the appellant pleading not guilty, the General Court Martial
proceeded to record the evidence of witnesses. The
prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The General Court Martial
after appreciating the facts and the evidence on record, found G
the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was charged and
 after hearing his submission with regard to the quantum of
 sentence, sentenced the appellant to undergo 7 years of
 rigorous imprisonment and he was also dismissed from service
 for committing the offence of murder punishable under Section H
    8       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A 69 of the Army Act read with Section 302 of IPC. However upon
  revision, the Confirming Authority by an order dated 15.12.1998
  held that the sentence awarded by the General Court Martial
  after finding the appellant guilty of murder under Section 69 of
  the Army Act read with Section 302 of IPC, was not justiciable
B and further observed that once the appellant was held guilty
  urider the abovementioned Sections, he could be either
  sentenced to life imprisonment and fine or sentenced to death.
  Accordingly, the General Court Martial by an order dated
  15.1.1999, revised the sentence and sentenced the appellant
C to imprisonment for life and dismissal from service, which was
  subsequently confirmed by the Confirming Authority. Being
  aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed J petition before the
  Chief of Army Staff under Section 164 of the Army Act, which
  was rejected. The appellant being aggrieved by the same filed
  a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
0
       3. The learned Counsel for the appellant raised two
  contentions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
  the Writ proceedings. Firstly, it was submitted that the charge
  framed against the appellant was vague, as a result of which,
E entire Court Martial proceedings was vitiated. The second
  submission was that the intervention of High Court was required
  as the facts and circumstances of the case does not justify the
  punishment of life imprisonment as the offence revealed from
  the material evidence is only punishable under Section 304 Part
F II and not under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. As regards
  the first contention, the High Court has observed that as the
  appellant was informed of all the allegations put forth against
  him at the time or Court Martial proceedings, the charge framed
  against the appellant cannot be said to be vague. Considering
G the second contention, the High Court found the testimony of
  PW-1 Paulose who is the eyewitness and PW-3 Haveldar
  lndrpal to whom the dying declaration was given by the
  deceased, is reliable and, hence, observed that there is no
  doubt about the fact that appellant caused the death of the
H
      ARUN RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                        9
                 [H.L. DATTU, J.]

deceased by stabbing him with a knife. Therefore, the                 A
submission that there was no intention on the part of the
appellant to kill the deceased as only one stab injury was found
on deceased, was rejected by the Court. The High Court while
cons;dering the decision on which reliance was placed by
learned counsel for the accused observed, that there was no           B
sudden quarrel and the murder was not caused on spur of
moment and no sufficient provocation is found for the offence
committed by appellant to fall under section 304 Part II of Indian
Penal Code. As the offence was found to be committed with
enough time to mediate on the action to commit the murder of          C
deceased, appellant was said to have intention to cause the
death of the deceased. Thus, the High Court found the charge
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code proved and the
procedure under Army Act followed without any infringement of
principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the Writ Petition
was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.8.2005.
                                                                      0

     4. We now come to the particular question to which this
appeal is limited, namely, propriety of the conviction and
sentence passed on the appellant for the offence under Section
302 IPC read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950.                   E
Mr.K.K.Mani, the learned counsel for the appellant contends,
that, the death of the deceased was caused due to grave and
sudden provocation and, therefore, offence would fall under
Exception I of Section 300 l.P.C. Further, it is contended that
the offence committed by the appellant is liable for punishment       F
under Section 304 Part II of the l.P.C., as there is absence of
any intention on part of the appellant to cause death. Mr.Mani
also cited few decisions of this Court to support his submission
that the single stab injury caused by the appellant to the
deceased only amounts to offence punishable under Section             G
304 Part II and not under Section 302 of l.P.C. Per contra, the
learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that, the findings
of the Court Martial and the punishment upheld by the High
 Court need not be interfered by this Court as the facts and the
                                                                      H
    10       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 - [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A evidence.on record are enough to prove that the offence
  committed by the appellant falls under Section 302 of l.P.C. It
  is also contended that the scope of judicial review is for limited
  purpose and that cannot be used to re-appreciate the evidence
  recorded in Court Martial proceedings to arrive at a different
B conclusion.

       5. We now consider the first contention of the learned
  counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that ihe cause of
  death of deceased is due to the stabbing by a knife by
  appellant. However, it is argued on behalf of the appellant that
C the appellant caused the said injury because on 23.03.1998
  deceased Havildar R.C.Tiwari and Havildar lnderpal (PW-3)
  abused the appellant and he was provoked to 'punish' the
  deceased. Thus, the stab injury caused to the deceased was
  a rnsult of such grave and sudden provocation and thus the
D incident took place on spur of moment. Therefore, the case of
  the appellant falls under Exception I of Section 300 of 1.P.C.

         At this state itself, it is relevant to notice Section 300 of
    l.P.C.:
E        "Section 300. Murder

         Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
         homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused
         is done with the intention of causing death, or-
F
         2ndly

         If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury
         as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of
         the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
G
         3rdly

         If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any
         person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
          ARUN RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                      11
                     [H.L. DATTU, J.)

         sufficient in the ordinary course 1of nature to cause death,    A
         or-

         4thly

         If the person committing the act knows that it is so
         imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause    B
         death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and.
         commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk
         of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

..
     '
         Exception I-When culpable homicide is not murder-               c
         Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst
         deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden
         provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
         provocation or causes the death of any other person by
         mistake or accident.                                            D
         The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-

         First-That the provocations not sought or voluntarily
         provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing
         harm to any person.                                             E
         Secondly-That the provocation is not given by anything
         done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the
         lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

         Thirdly-That the provocations not given by anything done        i;
                                                                             /
         in the lawful exercise of the right of 'private defence.

         Explanation-Whether the provocation was grave and
         sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting
         to murder is a question of fact."                               G
    6. The aforesaid Section provides five exceptions wherein
the culpable homicide would not amount to murder. Under
Exception I, an injury resulting into death of the person would
not be considered as murder when the offender has lost his
                                                                         H
    12      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 7 S.C.R.


A self-control due to the grave and sudden provocation. It is also
  important to mention at this stage that the provision its~lf makes
  it clear by the Explanation provided, that what would constitute
  grave and sudden provocation, which would be enough to
  prevent the offence from amounting to murder, is a question of
B fact. Provocation is an external stimulus which can result into
  loss of self-control. Such provocation and the resulting reaction
  need to be measured from the surrounding circumstances.
  Here the provocation must be such as will upset not merely a
  hasty, hot tempered and hypersensitive person but also a
c person with calm nature and ordinary sense. What is sought
  by the law by creating the exception is that to take into
  consideration situations wherein a person with normal behavior
  reacting to the given incidence of provocation. Thus, the
  protection extended by the exception is to the normal person
  acting normally in the given situation.
0
         7. The scope of the "doctrine of provocation" was stated
  by Viscount Simon in Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecution,
  (1942) A.C. 200 at p.206: "it is not all provocation that will
  reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. Provocation to
E have that result, must be such as temporarily deprive the
  person provoked of the power of self-control as result of which
  he commits the unlawful act which caused death. The test to
  be applicable is that of the effect of the provocation on a
  reasonable man, as was laid down by the Court of Criminal
F Appeal in Rex v. Lesbini, (1914) 3 K. B. 1116 so that an
  unusually excitable or pugnacious individual is not entitled
  to rely on provocation which would not have led ordinary
  person to act as he did. In applying the test, it is of particular
  importance to (a) consider whether a sufficient interval has
G elapsed since the provocation to allow a reasonable man time
  to cool, and (b) to take into account the instrument with which
  the homicide was effected, for to retort, in the heat of passion
  induced by provocation, by a simple blow, is very different
  thing from making use of a deadly instrument like a
H
      ARUN RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                     13
                 [H.L. DATTU, J.]

concealed dagger. In short, the mode of resentment must            A
bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the
offence is to be reduced to manslaughter."

      8. It is, therefore, important in the case at hand to consider
the reasonable relationship of the action of appellant of
                                                                     8
stabbing the deceased, to the provocation by the deceased in
the form of abusing the appellant. At this stage, it would be
useful to recall the relevant chain of events in brief to judge
whether there was sufficient provocation and the criterion under
the provision are satisfied to bring the offence under the
Exception I. As is already stated, on the previous night of the C
incidence, there was altercation between the appellant and
deceased, as the deceased had abused the appellant. On
23.3.1998 at about 1.00 PM, the deceased complained to the
 Higher Officer-Mr.S.S.B.Rao about the said incident.
Thereafter, he returned to his barrack and was present there D
 before the happening of the incident. In the testimony, (PW-1)
 Paulose states that he was also present in the same barrack
 after he came back from Other Rank Mess at 2.15 PM and was
 relaxing on his cot which was in the corner of the same barrack.
 At that time he saw the appellant coming towards the door on E
 which he thoUfjht that the appellant was coming for either urinal
 or to collect his clothes spread out in sun. The appellant who
 was wearing a half T-shirt and lungi came near the cot of the
 deceased which was at the door and took out a knife from the
 lungi and stabbed on the right side of chest of the deceased F
 when he was asleep. PW-1 agreed at the time of examination
 of witness, that he was shocked to see the appellant stab the
 deceased and he also shouted at the appellant asking him what
 was he doing. Thus, PW-1 was unable to relate the actions of
 appellant to the abuses by deceased or the altercation which G
 happened the previous night. Further, it is clear from the
 testimony of the PW-1 and the evidence collected (ME-1), that
 the knife which was completely made of iron and had a sharp
 edge was hidden at the waistline of the lungi of the appellant.
 Major Prabal Datta, PW-9 was the Regimental Medical Officer
                                                                     H
    14      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A at 19 AD Regt. In his cross examination, he has stated, that
  there was not much time lag between the occurrence of the
  incident and the deceased being rushed to the hospital. The
  facts like that there was time lag of 40-45 minute after appellant
  had come from the office of Higher Officer after complaining
B and was present with the appellant in the same barrack without
  any conversation between them, that he had got the knife which
  was sharp onough to have the knowledge that it might cause
  death of a human being when stabbed, that the knife was
  hidden and removed by appellant only when he was about to
C stab the deceased, that the appellant stabbed the deceased
  on the chest which is a fragile portion of the body and can
  cause death when stabbed by sharp weapon and also that the
  eyewitness was unable to link the abusing and the altercation
  of the deceased and appellant to the action of stabbing, rules
  out the possibility of the offence being committed due to 'grave
0
  and sudden' provocation. The appellant clearly had time to
  deliberate and plan out the death of Havildar R C Tiwari (the
  deceased). We, therefore, conclude that the first contention of
  the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit and the
  appellant cannot get benefit of the Exception I to Section 300
E of l.P.C.

       9. We now turn to second point urged on behalf of the
  appellant. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no
  intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the
F deceased and, hence, Section 304 Part II of the IPC which
  deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, will be
  attracted. Alternatively, it is contended that the appellant dealt
  one single blow on the deceased, and hence, intention to cause
  death cannot be attributed to the appellant and, hence, the act
G of the appellant will not fall under Section 302 of IPC but under
  Section 304 Part II. In light of these contentions, it is necessary
  to look into the wordings of the relevant provision. Section 304
  of IPC reads:-

         "Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not
H
      ARUN RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                        15
                 [H.L. DATTU, J.]
     amounting to murder                                                A
     Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to
     murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life ,or
     imprisonment of either description for a term which may
     extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the
                                                                        8
     act by which the death is caused is done with the intention
     of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely
     to cause death,

     Or with imprisonment of either descripti_an for a term which
     may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the        C
     act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
     death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause
     such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."

     10. Essentially the ingredients for bringing an act under          0
Part II of the Section are:-

       (i)    act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to
              cause death,

       (ii)   there is no intention to cause death, or to cause         E
              such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

        11. The first ingredient is easily solved by referring to the
 weapon used by the appellant to strike a knife blow to the
 appellant. The appellant in this instance has used a kitchen
                                                                        F
 knife. A kitchen knife with sharp edges is a dangerous weapon
 and it is very obvious that the appellant was aware that the use
                                                      /

 of such a weapon can cause death or serious bodily injury that
  is likely to cause death. As far as the second ingredient is
 concerned, the appellant's learned counsel contended that the
  fact that there was one single blow struck, proves that there was     G
  no intention to cause death. In support of the plea, reliance is
  placed on the decisions of this court in the case of Bhera v.
· State of Rajasthan, [(2000) 10 SCC 225], Kunhayippu v. State
  of Kera/a, [(2000) 10 SCC 307], Masumsha Hasansha
                                                                        H
    16      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A Musa/man v. State of Maharashtra, [(2000) 3 SCC 557], Guljar
  Hussain v. State of UP., [1993 Supp (1) SCC 554), K.
  Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kera/a, [(1999) 3 SCC
  309], Pappu v. State of MP., [(2006) 7 SCC 391], Muthu v.
  State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, [(2007) 12 Scale
B 795]. A brief perusal of all these cases would reveal that in all
  these cases there was a sudden and instantaneous altercation
  which led to the accused inflicting n single blow to the
  deceased with a sharp weapon. Hence, there has been
  conviction under Section 304 Part II as delivering a single blow
c with a sharp weapon in a sudden fight would not point towards
  intention to cause death. These cases are clearly
  d;"+';1guishable from the case at hand, purely on the basis of
  tJcts. In the present case, there has been no sudden altercation
  ··:i1ich ensued between the appellant and the deceased in the
  present case. The deceased called the appellant 'gandu'
0
  fo!lowing which there was a heated exchange of words between
  tr.e two, the day before the murder. The next day, however, the
  appellant concealed a kitchen knife in his lungi and went
  towards the cot of the deceased and struck the deceased a
  blow on the right side of the chest, while the deceased was
E sleeping. The fact that the appellant waited till the next day, went
  on to procure a deadly weapon like a kitchen knife and then
  proceeded to strike a blow on the chest of the appellant when
  he was sleeping, points unerringly towards due deliberation on
  the part of the appellant to avenge his humiliation at the hands
F of the appellant. The nature of weapon used and the part of the
  body where the blow was struck, which was a vital part of the
  body helps in proving beyond reasonable doubt, the intentior\
  of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. Once
  these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was
G a single blow struck or multiple blows. This court in the case of
  State of Rajasthan v. Dhoo/ Singh, [(2004) 12 SCC 546] while
  dismissing a similar contention has stated that, "It is the nature
  of injury, the part of body wh~re it is caused, the weapon used
  in causing such injury which are the indicators of the fact
H
      ARUN RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                      17
                 [H.L. DATTU, J.]

whether the respondent caused the death of the deceased with          A
an intention of causing death or not. In the instant case, it is
true that the respondent had dealt one single blow with a sword
which is a sharp-edged weapon measuring about 3 ft. in length
on a vital part of body, namely, the neck. This act of the
respondent though solitary in number had severed sternoclinoid        B
muscle, external jugular vein, internal jugular vein and common
carotid artery completely leading to almost instantaneous death.
Any reasonable person with any stretch of imagination can
come to the conclusion that such injury on such a vital part of
the body with a sharp-edged weapon would cause death. Such            C
an injury, in our opinion, not only exhibits the intention of the
attacker in causing the death of the victim but also the
knowledge of the attacker as to the likely consequence of such
attack which could be none other than causing the death of the
victim. The reasoning of the High Court as to the inten~ion and       D
knowledge of the respondent in attacking and causing death
 of the victim, therefore, is wholly erroneous and cannot be
 sustained."

    12. In the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, [AIR
1958 SC 465], this court while referring to intention to cause E
death laid down:-                  ·                          :,

     "27. Once these four elements are established by the
     prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the
     prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300,      F
     3rdly. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause
     death. It does not matter that there was no intention even
     to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death
     in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real
     distinction between the two). It does not even matter that       G
     there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely
     to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily
     injury actually found to be proved, the rest of the enquiry is
     purely objective and the only question is whether, as a
     matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient   H
    18        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2010] 7 S.C.R


A         in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one
          nas a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are
          sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature
          and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict
          injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and
B         they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably
          deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise
          unintentional."

          This court further observed:-
c          "33. It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be linked
           up with the seriousness of the injury,. For example, if it can
           be proved, or if the totality of the circumstances justify an
           inference, that the prisoner only intended a superficial;
           scratch and that by accident this victim stumbled and fell
D          on the sword or spear that was used, then of course the
           offence is not murder. But that is not because the prisoner
           did not intend the injury that he intended to inflict to be as
           serious as it turned out to be but because he did not intend
           to inflict the injury in question at all. His intention in such a
E          case would be to inflict a totally different injury. The
           difference is not one of law but one of fact; and whether
           the conclusion should be one way or the other is a matter
           of proof, where necessary, by calling in aid all reasonable
         · inferences of fact in the absence of direct testimony. It is
F          not one for guess-work and fanciful conjecture."

         13. In Anil v. State of Haryana, [(2007) 10 SCC 274], while
    referring to Virsa Singh (supra) this court laid down:-

          "19. In Thangaiya v. State of T. N., relying upon a
G         celebrated decision of this Court in Virsa Singh v. State
          of Punjab 1958 CriLJ 818, the Division Bench observed:

          17. These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become
          locus classicus. The test lai.d down by Virsa Singh case
H
     · ARUN RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                        19
                  [H.L. DATTU, J.]
      for the applicability of Clause "thirdly" is now ingrained in     A
      our legal system and has become part of the rule of law.
      Under Clause "thirdly" of Section 300 IPC. culpable
      homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are
      satisfied: i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done
      with the intention of causing death or is done with the           B
      intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury
      intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course
      of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was
      an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which, in
      the ordinary course of ,nature, was sufficient to, cause          c
    · death viz. that the injury found to be present was the injury
      that was intended to be inflicted.
                                                                            \
     18. Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh
     case even if the intention of the appellant was limited to
     the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in     D
     the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the
     intention of causing death, the offence would be murder.
     Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out
     this point.
                                                                        E
      14. In tl'le aforesaid decision, this Court held that there is
no fixed rule that whenever Ci sj(lgle blow is inflicted Section 302
would not be attractd.· -
                                        •
       15. It is clear'1 from .the abov~ line of cases, that it is
                                                                        F
 necessary to prove first ttfat there~was an intention of causing
 bodily injury; <ind that the injury intenc:l\!d to be inflicted is
'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. From
 the evidence on rec,orp, it is very clear that the appellant
 intended to cause death. In light of this finding, the evidence
 on record makes it clear that Section 304 Part II of the IPC will      G
 not be attracted. Further PW~ 1, in flis cross-examination asserts
 that the deceased held his hand out after he was stabbed in
 the chest. It is very likely that this action on the part of the
 deceased prevented the appellant from stabbing him multiple
                                                                        H
    20       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A number of times. The argument might deserve some merit in
  case there is a sudden altercation which ensues in the heat of
  the moment and there is no deliberate planning. In the present
  case, as stated above there was due deliberation on the part
  of the appellant and he assaulted the deceased a day after he
B misbehaved with him. Hence, the contention of the learned
  counsel that the appellant had oo intention to cause death of
  the deceased has no merit and, accordingly, it is rejected.

       16. We, accordingly, hold that the conviction of the
  appellant for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal
C Code, is not bad in law. In our opinion, the appeal has no merit
  and, accordingly, it is dismissed

    K.K.T.                                    Appeal dismissed.