Supreme Court of India
BENJAMINversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 49
- Decided
- 11 January 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is correct as the intention to kill is proved by the nature and extent of injuries and corroborative medical evidence.
Summary
The appellant and two co‑accused were charged with murder under Section 302 IPC, with the third accused also charged under Section 34. On 25 November 1994, the deceased was assaulted with a wooden log by the appellant while the co‑accused restrained him and threatened a witness. The deceased sustained multiple severe head injuries, corroborated by medical and ocular evidence, and later died. The trial court convicted all three; the Madras High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction but acquitted the other two, citing lack of motive and insufficient linkage. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the number and nature of injuries, together with the medical opinion, clearly demonstrated the appellant’s intention to kill, and that the High Court’s acquittals were untenable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant’s conviction affirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant possessed the requisite intention to kill under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the High Court erred in acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3.
- Whether the number and nature of injuries can be used to infer intention to kill.
- Whether any delay in lodging the FIR or commencing investigation affects the conviction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
murderintention to killmens reaSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCeyewitness testimonymedical evidenceFIR delayconvictionacquittal
Judgment
(2008] 1 S.C.R. 656
,I..
A BENJAMIN
v.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Crl. A. No. 76 of 2006)
JANUARY 11 , 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.]
~ I
'
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder- By three accused-
Multiple and severe injuries on the deceased - Enmity between
c parties - Eye-witness to the occurrence - Ocular evidence
corroborated by medical evidence - No delay in lodging of
FIR and commencing of investigation - Trial court convicting
all the accused -- High Court convicting one, but acquitting
rest of the accused - On appeal, held: Conviction of the
D accused by High Court is correct - In view of number and
nature of injuries and the medical evidence intention of the
accused is proved.
Criminal Law- 'Mens rea' - Determination of - Held: It
should be determined in the facts of each case.
E
Appellant-accused No. 1, alongwith accused Nos. 2
and 3 was prosecuted for having caused death of a
person. According to prosecution case, there existed
enmity between the parties. The accused had been
causing various kinds of mischief against the deceased
F on various occasions. Few months before the occurrence ~
in question also, they allegedly put the haystalk of the •
deceased on fir.e. When the deceased and PW-1 were
coming on a bicycle, somebody flashed torchlight on the
deceased. PW-1 also flashed his torchlight and saw the
G appellant. Appellant assaulted the deceased, accused No.
3 caught hold of the deceased and accused No. 2
threatened PW-·1 on the point of a knife. FIR was lodged.
...
~
Trial Court convicted all the accused. High Court upheld
the conviction of appellant-accused, but acquitted
H 656
r.
BENJAMIN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 657
-- ..t
accused Nos. 2 and 3. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
A
HELD: 1. Keeping in view the number of injuries
inflicted on the deceased as also the nature thereof and
furthermore in view of the opinion expressed by the B
doctor, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the
I ..i appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. [Para 18)
[662-F]
2. The High Court while mentioning about the
conduct of the appellant, meant overt acts attributed on c
the part of the appellant. The High Court merely opined
that in view of the number of injuries inflicted upon the
deceased, he had an intention to kill him. Intention to kill
a person must be determined having regard to the factual
scenario involved in each case. The doctor (PW-3) has
D
clearly stated that the injuries suffered by the deceased
-..\ could have been caused by the log of wood, which was
marked as M.0.1. Medical evidence, thus, corroborated
the ocular evidence. [Para 17] [662-C-E]
3. PW-1 and PW-4 have proved enmity between the E
parties. Veracity of statements of the said witnesses to
that effect was not tested in the cross-examination. The
fact that an incident had occurred a few days prior to
the incident in question is also not in dispute. [Para 11)
._, [661-C]
F
"' 4. The investigation commenced immediately after
the lodging of the First Information Report. ltis not a case
where an undue delay in lodging the First Information
Report took place. [Para 12] [661-E]
5. PW-1, although may be son of the deceased, but it G
..... • is difficult to disbelieve his statement that he had
witnessed the occurrence. The cycle and the torch used
by PW-1 had no connection with the commission of the
offence. If they had not been seized by the police, for one
reason or the other, the same by itself would not be a H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A ground to disbelieve the statement of PW-1. [Para 15]
[661-H; 662-A]
...
-
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 76 of 2006.
B From the final Order dated 18.1.2006 of the High Cou~t of
Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1997.
>. I
T. Raja for the Appellant.
V. Kanakaraj, V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S.
c Prabhu Ramasubramanian for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
D dated 19th January, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the
Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.142 of 1997 whereby ~
and whereunder the appeal filed by the appellant against an
order of conviction dated 30th January, 1997 passed by the •
Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul Anna District, was
E dismissed.
3. Appellant with Jesu Raj and Arokiyam were proceeded
against for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. The first and second accused were charged
for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of
F the Indian Penal Code whereas the third accused was charged
...
for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian •
Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof.
4. Enmity between the parties is admitted. There were
instances to show that the accused had been causing various
G kinds of mischief. The incident in question occurred on 25th
November, 1994. Two years prior thereto, accused Nos. 1 and
3 assaulted the deceased and PW-4, Viyakula Mary. Four • ,.
months thereafter, the appellant (accused No.1) is said to have
caused damage to the pipeline of the water of the house of the
H deceased. A few months before the incident in question,
BENJAMIN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 659
POLICE [S.B. SINHA, J.]
>-. allegedly the haystack of the deceased was put on fire. A
Two weeks prior to the incident again, the deceased was
assaulted resulting in initiation of a criminal proceeding against
the accused.
5. On 25th November, 1994 at about 9.00 p.m. while the B
deceased and the informant - Kolandaisamy (PW-1) were
I ..I
proceeding towards their house from Nilakkottai Market on their
bicycles, somebody had flashed torch light on the deceased.
Deceased questioned thereabout. At that time PW-1 also
flashed light from his torch towards the opposite direction and
saw the appellant. Appellant assaulted the deceased with a wood
c
log which was marked as M.0.1. He saw the accused No.3
catching hold of the deceased. He was threatened with dire
consequences, if he intervened, by the accused No.2 with a
knife. The deceased fell down but still was repeatedly assaulted.
PW-1 ran from the spot. He was chased. He allegedly hid himself D
~
in a bush.
6. PW-1 met PW-2 Saveriar and informed him about the
incident that had taken place. They rushed to their village. They
came back to the scene of occurrence and found that the
E
deceased had expired.
7. PW-1 went to Nilakottai police station. A First
Information Report was lodged at about 1.00 A. M. on 27th
November, 1994. The Investigating officer reached the place of
~~ occurrence at about 2.00A.M. He recovered blood stained earth F
and a blue shawl. Inquest of the dead body was conducted
between 3.00 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. He had also examined some
witnesses being PWs. 1, 2, 5 and 6. The body was sent for
post-mortem examination. Autopsy was conduced at about
11.15 a.m. on 27th November, 1994. The following anti mortem
G
injuries were found on the person of the deceased :-
• "1. On the back side of the head a bruise of the size 3 cm
x 2 cm was found.
2. on the back of the left side of the head a bruise of size
3 cm x 2 cm was found. H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A 3. On the upper portion of the head a swelling of the size
3 cm x 3 cm was found.
'
4. On the front side of the head a swelling of size 3 cm x
3 cm was found.
B 5. On the right side of the eye brow a bruise of size 2 cm
x 1 cm was found.
~
6. Below the right eye a bruise of size 2 cm x 2 cm was I
found. Right eye was closed. Outside the right was totally
blackened.
c
7. a swelling of the size 6 cm x 4 cm was found on the right
cheek."
8. The learned Sessions Judge relying on or on the basis
of the material brought on record accepted the deposition of
D PW-1, Kolandaisamy. All the accused were held guilty of the
charges leveled against them. On an appeal preferred by the ,_
accused before the High Court, it while upholding the conviction
and sentence of the appellant herein, it recorded a judgment of
acquittal so far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. It was
E opined that accused No.2 being father in law of he appellant,
might not have any motive to cause the murder of the deceased.
Besides, no incised injury has been found on the deceased. As
regards accused No.3, it was held that there was no cogent
material to connect him with the crime.
F 9. Mr. T. Raja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the I,.
appellant in support of the appeal, inter alia would submit :-
1) That the High Court committed a serious error in
drawing presumption on the basis of the appellant's
G
2)
conduct, to hold that he had the requisite intention to
kill the deceased. Such a presumption, learned
counsel would contend, is not available in law.
The cycle and torch used by PW-1 having not been
.
seized, which were material for the purpose of
H corroborating his statement, the impugned judgment
BENJAMIN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 661
POLICE [S.8. SINHA, J.]
is liable to be set aside. A
3) If the articles which PW-1 had bought, could be
seized, there was absolutely no reason as to why the
cycle and the torch used by PW-1 could not have
also been seized.
8
10. Mr. V. Kanakaraj, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the
impugned judgment.
11. PW-1 and PW-4 have proved enmity between the
parties. Veracity of statements of the said witnesses to that effect C
was not tested in the cross-examination. The fact that an incident
had occurred a few days prior to the incident in question is also
not in dispute.
12. The First Information Report was received by the
0
Investigating officer, PW-10, at 1.00 a.m. on 27th November,
1994. He immediately came to the site. The distance between
the place of occurrence and Nilakkottai Police Station is about
3 kms. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence
at about 2.00 a.m. Thus, the investigation commenced
immediately after the lodging of the First Information Report. It E
is not a case where an undue delay in lodging the First
Information Report took place.
13. Homicidal death of Maria Michel stands undisputed. It
-' is also evident from the postcmortem examination report that F
the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by a log
of wood which was marked as M.0.1. The deceased suffered
atleast three fractures on his head.
14. PW-1, although may be a son of the deceased, but it
is difficult to disbelieve his statement that he had witnessed the G
occurrence.
15. We have been taken through the entirety of his
deposition and do not find any reason to differ with the views of
the l~arned Sessions Judge as also the High Court. The cycle H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.
A and the torch used by PW-1 had no connection with the
commission of the offence. If they had not been seized by the
police, for one reason or the other, the same by itself would not
be a ground to disbelieve the statement of PW-1.
,4
--
16. The following finding of the High Court had been
B commented upon by Mr. Raja.
"From the conduct of the first accused, it can be presumed V• i
that the first accused had the intention to kill the deceased
and therefore the prosecution has proved its case in so
c far as the first accused is concerned."
17. The High Court while mentioning about the conduct of
the appellant, meant overt acts attributed on the part of the
appellant. The High Court merely opined that in view of the
number of injuries inflicted upon the deceased, he had an
D intention to kill him. Intention to kill a person must be determined
having regard to the factual scenario involved in each case. The
doctor PW-3, K. Subramaniam, has clearly stated that the '•
injuries suffered by the deceased could have been caused by "
the log of wood, which was marked as M.0.1. Medical evidence,
E thus, corroborated the ocular evidence.
18. Keeping in view the number of injuries inflicted on the
deceased as also the nature thereof and furthermore in view of
the opinion expressed by the doctor, there cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that the appellant had the intention to kill the
F deceased.
19. For the reasons abovementioned we do not find any
merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
G
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search