Supreme Court of India
BALA BAINE LINGA RAJUversusSTATE OF A.P.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 691
- Decided
- 5 May 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is inapplicable where the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment, so the High Court's release order is invalid and the trial court's conviction and sentence stand.
Summary
The appellant stabbed the husband of PW‑2 with scissors, causing fatal injuries to the lung and heart. The trial court convicted him under IPC s.304 Part I and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction but released the appellant under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, ordering compensation to PW‑2. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Probation Act could be invoked for an offence punishable with life imprisonment. It held that Section 4 of the Act applies only when the offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment; since s.304 Part I carries a life term, the Act was inapplicable. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored.
Issues considered
- Whether the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be applied to an offence punishable with life imprisonment under IPC s.304 Part I.
- Whether the conviction should be under IPC s.302, s.304 Part I or s.304 Part II.
- Whether the High Court could set aside the sentence and release the appellant on probation and compensation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 235(2), s. 357
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304 Part I, s. 304 Part II
- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 4, s. 5, s. 6
Subjects
Probation of Offenders ActIPC 304life imprisonmentcompensationhomicidemurderconvictionsentencingappellate jurisdiction
Judgment
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 595
BALA BAINE LINGA RAJU A
V.
STATE OF A.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 2009
MAY 05, 2009 ·
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)
• Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - ss. 4 and 5 -
- Applicability of the Act - Appellant stabbed husband of PW2
with a scissor causing injuries to his lung and heart which
proved fatal...,. Trial court convicted appellant uls.304 Part I
/PC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' imprisonment
- High Court upheld conviction but directed release of
c
appellant under the Act by purporting to grant appropriate
amount of compensation to PW2 - Held: S.4 of the Act
>
empowers the court to release a person on probation of good D
conduct, if the offence is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life -Appellant was found guilty under s.304
Part I /PC which provides for imprisonment for life or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to imprisonment for life - Thus, provisions of the said Act were E
not applicable in case of appellant - High Court erred in
~
invoking the provisions of the Act -- Judgment of conviction
..
-
.....:
and sentence passed by trial courl accordingly restoreq -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 300 and 304 Part /.
According to the prosecution, in course of a verbal F
quarrel, appeUant came out of his house with a scissor
and stabbed the husband of PW2 causing injuries to his
lung and heart which proved fatal. Appellant was charged
for alleged commission of offence under s.302 IPC. The
trial court, however, convicted the appellant u/s.304 part I G
J IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years'
imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court upheld the
conviction but directed release of the appellant under the
595 H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by purporting to grant "
appropriate amount of compensation to PW2 .
The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal was whether invocation of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 by the High Court was justified.
B
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Appellant was inside the house. He admittedly •
-
was not a party to the quarrel. So far as he was concerned,
neither PW-2 nor the deceased caused any provocation
c to him. The manner in which the assault had taken place
must also be noticed inasmuch as he had injured the lung
and heart- of the deceased. [Para 9] (600-B-C]
2.1. S.300 IPC provides that culpable homicide would
be murder if the act by which the death is caused is done
D
with the intention of causing death or if it is done inter alia
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. Once it is held that
injury was caused on a vital part of the body with
E knowledge that it may cause death or such injury which
is likely to cause death, the ingredients of provisions of
s.300 must be held to have been proved in view of the
-
~
decision of this Court in Virsa Singh. This case, thus,
although attracts the principles of Virsa Singh in terms
F whereof it was possible to arrive at a conclusion that the
appellant in fact is guilty of commission of an offence
under s.302 IPC, in absence of any appeal having been
preferred by the State from the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the Trial Judge, this Court is not
G in a position to arrive at the said conclusion. [Paras 10,
13, 14] (600-C-D; 603-A-D] l
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1958) SC 465; Kesar
Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2008) 6 SCALE 433; State
of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr (1976)
H
BALA BAINE LINGA RAJU V. STATE OF AP. 597
4 SCC 382; Mohd. Asifv. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 3 SCALE A
695 and Mavila Thamban Nambiar v. State of Kera/a Al R 1997
SC 687 ....: referred to.
3.1. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was enacted
to provide for the release of offenders on probation or
_after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. 8
5.4 of the said Act empowers th~ court to release a person
' on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions
.that the offence is not punishable with death or imprison-
ment for life. Only in the event, the provisions of the said
Act are applicable, s.6 of the Act can be taken recourse C
to. [Paras 15, 16] [603-D-F]
3.2. Appellant was charged with commission of an
offence under s.302 IPC. He has been found guilty under
.. s.304 Part I thereof which provides for imprisonment for
life or imprisonment of either description for a term which
D
may extend to imprisonment for life. In this view of the
matter, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 are not applicable. [Para 17] [603-F-G]
3.3. The High Court was not correct in invoking the E
provisjons of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. While
setting aside that part of the judgment of the High Court,
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
... .4
Trial Judge is restored. [Para 19] [604-B-C]
Case Law Reference F
AIR (1958) SC 465 referred to Para 11
(2008) 6 SCALE 433 referred to Para 12
(1976) 4 sec 382 referred to Para 12 G
J (2009) 3 SCALE 695 referred to Para 12
AIR 1997 SC 687 referred to Para 13
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 911 of 2009 H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A From the Judgement and Order dated 23.04.2007 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2002
Anand, D. Bharat Ku ma, Abhijit Sengupta, for the Appellant.
B D. Bharathi Reddy, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
5.8. SINHA, J. '
1. Leave granted.
c
2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with a judgment and order dated 23.04.2007 passed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature atAndhra
Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2002 whereby and
whereunder it, while upholding the judgment and conviction of
0
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ..
under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and setting
aside the order of sentence of imprisonment of seven years,
released the appellant under the Probation of Offenders Act,
E 1958 (for short "the Act") by purporting to grant appropriate
amount of compensation to PW-2, directing:
" ... Thus, it is ordered that the appellant shall be released
F
under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on
his executing a personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- to keep
peace for a period of two years and on his further payment
of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)
-
to P.W.2, wife of the deceased, under Section 5 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. As the provisions of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 do not provide for default
G sentence in case of failure to pay compensation and
provide only for recovery of the same as fine, it is
specifically ordered that the compensation awarded shall
be treated as the one under Section 357 Cr.P.C. as well
and in case of failure on the part of the appellant to pay
compensation, he shall undergo imprisonment for three
H
BALA BAINE LINGA RAJU V. STATE OF A.P. 599
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
'·
-. years. Time for payment of compensation is three months A
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. This Court while issuing notice directed the appellant
also to show cause as to why the sentence shall not be
enhanced.
B
4. Before, however, we consider the merit of the matter,
we may notice the factual matrix involved herein.
The parties are neighbours. The incident took plac.e on
24.08.1999 at village Chilkur. Allegedly, PW-2, wife of the
deceased while feeding her child scolded him describing him C
as mis:::hievous. Accused No. 2 thought that the said remarks
of PW-2 were directed against her. She and her husband picked
up a quarrel with PW-2. The deceased, the husband of PW-2,
came there and got himself involved in the quarrel. Appellant
who was inside the house came out with a scissor and stabbed D
the deceased.
5. The learned Trial Judge keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of this case, opined:
"Hence, it won't attract the ingredients of the alleged E
offence under Section 3021.P.C. and it attracts the offence
under Section 304 Part I of l.P.C."
6. Appellant was sentenced to undergo seven years'
imprisonment. He preferred an appeal thereagainst. By reason
of the impugned judgment, as noticed hereinbefore, while F
maintaining the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by the learned Trial Judge under Section 304, Part I of the Indian
Penal. Code, the impugned direction was issued.
7. Mr. Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the G
appellant would contend that keeping in view the age of the
> appellant on the date of commis:?ion of the offence, the High
Court should have invoked Section 6 of the Act and in that view
of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
8. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S. C.R.
A behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, supported the
impugned judgment.
9. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the parties,
we may notice that the lung and heart injuries were caused to
the deceased. He died "due to lot of bleeding".
B
Appellant was inside the house. He admittedly was not a
party to the quarrel. So far as he was concerned, neither PW-2
nor the deceased caused any provocation to him. The manner
in which the assault had taken place must also be noticed •
inasmuch as he had injured the lung and heart of the deceased.
c It is also not a case where the lives of the parents were in danger.
10. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code provides that
culpabale homicide would be murder if the act by which the death
is caused is done with the intention of causing death or if it is
D done inter alia 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. Exception I appended thereto, ...
however, provides that culpabale homicide would not be murder
if the offender is deprived of the power of self-control by grave
E
and sudden provocation and causes the death of the person
who gives provocation. The said 'Exception' is, however, subject
to the following provisos:
"First.-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily
-
provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing .. ...----
F harm to any person.
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."
The Explanation appended thereto states that whether the
G
provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the
offence from amounting to murder would be a question of fact.
11. Applicability of the aforementioned provisions came
up for consideration in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958
H SC 465] wherein the following standard was laid down:
BALA BAINE LINGA RAJU V. STATE OF A.P. · 601
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
"In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury A
-+ found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily
proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there
_. was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot,
and whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury
found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary B
to enquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether
the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out, or whether
he intended to penetrate the liver or the kidneys or the
""' heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy
- could never be convict, for, if he does not know that there
is a heart or a kidney or bowels, he cannot be said to have
intended to injure them. Of course, that is not the kind of
enquiry. It is broad-based and simple and based on
c
commonsense; the kind of enquiry that 'twelve good men
and true' could readily appreciate and understand." D
.. 12. This Court in Kesar Singh & Anr v. State of Haryana
[2008 (6) SCALE 433], wherein a Kassi (Spade) was used from
the reverse side on the deceased, noticed the deviation from
Virsa Singh tests beginning from State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr, 1(1976) 4 SCC 382], to hold: E
"Unfortunately, the propositions in Virsa Singh have not
been rigidly followed subsequently. For example, in State
of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr,
..\
[(1976) 4 sec 382], the enquiry became one of whether F
the accused intended to cause the ultimate internal injury
that led to death i.e. the Court inferred, from the
surrounding facts and circumstances in that case that the
accused had intended to cause the hemorrhage etc that
ultimately led to death." G
~
·-;to, This Court furthermore noticed the importance of the term
"fight" used in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code to opine:
•
"The word "fight" is used to convey something more than
a verbal quarrel. It postulates a bilateral transaction in
H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 7 S.C.R.
A which blows are exchanged. In order to constitute a fight,
it is necessary that blows should be exchanged even if t-
they all do not find their target. (Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Vol
2, page 1364, Footnote 4] No material in this regard has
been brought on record."
B
Like the present case, therein also the court noted that
only because a single knife blow had been given, the same, by
itself, would not bring the case within the purview of 'Thirdly' of
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code wherefor the court is
"
required to take into consideration the surrounding
c circumstances. It was held that Virsa Singh principle should be
applied in the aforementioned fact situation.
The legal principle enunciated therein has recently been
-
followed by this Court in Mohd. Asifv. State of Uttaranchal [2009 '
D (3) SCALE 695]
13. Mr. Anand, however, strongly relied upon a decision of ,..
this Court in Mavi/a Thamban Nambiar v. State of Kera/a [AIR
1997 SC 687] to contend that almost in a similar situation this
Court opined that only an offence under Section 304 Part II of
E the Indian Penal Code has been made out.
We may notice the relevant part of the judgment, which
reads as under:
"... After giving our careful thought to the nature of offence,
F we are of the considered view that the offence of the
appellant would more appropriately fall under Section 304
part II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had given
one blow with a pair of scissors on the vital part of the
body of Madhavan and, therefore, it would be reasonable
G to infer that he (appellant) had knowledge that any injury
with the pair of scissors on the vital part of would cause
death though he may not have intended to commit the
murder. We accordingly alter the conviction of the appellant
from 302 IPC to one under Section 304 part II of the IPC."
H
BALA BAINE UNGA RAJU V. STATE OF AP. 603
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
In that case also, Virsa Singh (supra) has been deviated A
from.
No reason has been assigned therein. Why conviction was
altered from Section 302 to 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code
has not been disclosed. Once it is held that injury was caused
on a vital part of the body with knowledge that it may cause B
,, death or such injury which is likely to cause death, the ingredients
of provisions of Section 300 must be held to have been proved
in view of the decision of this Court in Virsa Singh (supra).
14. This case, thus, although attracts the principles of Virsa c
Singh (supra) in terms whereof it was possible to arrive at a
conclusion thatthe appellant in fact is guilty of commission of
an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, we, in
absence of any appeal having been preferred by the State from
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
D
Trial Judge, are not in a position to arrive at the said conclusion.
15. It is on the aforementioned finding the applicability of
the provisions of the Act may be noticed. It was enacted to
provide for the release of offenders on probation or after due
admonition and for matters connected therewith. E
16. Section 4 of the Act empowers the court to release a
person on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions
that the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment
for life. Only ,in the event, the provisions of the said Act are
applicable, Section 6 of the Act can be taken recourse to. F
17. Appellant was charged with commission of an offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been found
guilty under Section 304 Part I thereof which provides for
imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description of a
G
~
term which may extend to imprisonment for life. In this view of
the matter, the provisions of the Act are not applicable.
18. Mr. Anand.submits that the learned Trial Judge has not
heard the appellant on the question of sentence as is provided
for under Sub-section (2) of Section 235 of the Code of Criminal H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S. C.R.
A Procedure. Although the learned counsel is correct, but keeping
in view the fact that the conviction of the appellant was under
Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the opinion
that even otherwise the sentence imposed on him is just and
proper.
B 19. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the ' .
High Court was not correct in invoking the provisions of the Act.
While setting aside that part of the judgment of the High Court,
we restore the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Trial Judge. The appeal is disposed of with the
C aforementioned directions.
B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.
-, I
.
. ..
I'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Probation of Offenders Act"Sign in to search