Holding

The conviction under s.302 read with s.149 is untenable; it must be altered to s.304(1) read with s.149 IPC.

Summary

The deceased was assaulted by a group of accused after a dispute over his auto and later died from the injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under sections 148, 448 r.w. s.149, 302/149 and 324/149 IPC; the High Court affirmed these convictions for some. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the evidence of relatives could be disregarded, whether the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus could invalidate the prosecution case, and which IPC provision correctly applied. It held that relationship of witnesses does not per se affect credibility and that the doctrine is not a mandatory rule in India. Even though parts of the evidence were deficient, the residual evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction. Applying the distinctions between sections 299, 300 and 304, the Court concluded that the proper offence was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304(1) read with s.149, not murder under s.302. Accordingly, the conviction was altered and a ten‑year sentence imposed.

Issues considered

The appropriate IPC provision for the offence – whether s.302 read with s.149 or s.304(1) read with s.149.
Whether testimony of witnesses related to the deceased can be rejected as partisan.
The applicability of the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus to discard the entire prosecution case.
Whether a conviction can be sustained when a major portion of the evidence is found deficient but residual evidence remains sufficient.
The interpretation of sections 299, 300 and 304 in distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 299, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304(1), s. 324, s. 448

Subjects

murderculpable homicidesection 302 IPCsection 304 IPCwitness credibilityrelated witnessesfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusIndian Penal Codeconviction alteration

Judgment

KALEGURA PADMA RAO AND ANR. A
v.
THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

FEBRUARY 19, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860 :

ss.299, 300, 302 and 304-1-Deceased beaten up indiscriminately,
resulting in his death-Conviction of accused under s.3021149-ln the light C
of evidence and principles laid down in ss.299 and 300, conviction of
accused altered to s.304-1.

Evidence:

Related witness-Evidence-Reliability of-Held, relationship not a D
factor to affect credibility of witness

Major portion of evidence found deficient-Conviction still
maintainable, if residual evidence sufficient to prove guilt of accused-
Doctrine of 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no applicability in India- E
Doctrines.

Prosecution case was that when the deceased had requested A-1, A-2 to
.travel in his Auto as per the serial number, they refused and started beating
him. The next day, deceased and his wife PW-1 informed Sarpanch about the
incident. A-1 admitted his guilt in the presence of PWs 9 and 10. In the F
evening, A-1 to A-16 armed with sticks, iron rods and axes, went to the house
of deceased and attacked him. Deceased was beaten up indiscriminately. When
his father PW-2 came to rescue him, he was also beaten up. Deceased and
PW-2 were taken to hospital where deceased succumbed to the injuries.

Trial Court convicted the accused persons for offences punishable under G
ss.148, 448 r.w. s.149, 302/149, 324/149 IPC. On appeal, the High Court
confirmed the conviction of appellants and A-7 to 9, 12 and 13.

In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the conviction is based

781 H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.
)-
A primarily on the evidence of witnesses who were related to the deceased and
further the accusations do not make out the case relatable to s.302 IPC.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I. I. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a
witness. A relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations
B
against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false
implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach
and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para Sf r
[787-A]

c Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Guli
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar
v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614, referred to.

1.2. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently
being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance.
D [Para II ( (787-F(

Masalti and Ors. v. Stale of U.P., AIR (1965) SC 202; State ofPunjab v.
Jagir Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lehna v. State of Haryana, [2002( 3 i.

sec 76, referred to.
· 2.1. Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of
E
evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw
out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of
"falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything).
This plea is clearly untenable. [Para 131 [788-E)

2.2. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case
F residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of
number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is
the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated
from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding
the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other
G accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular
would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus
I..
in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded
as liar. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which
a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be
called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'. It is merely a rule of caution. [Para 13)
H [788-F, G; 789-AI
KALEGURA PADMA RAO•·. THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 783

Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1957) SC 366; Sucha A
Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2003) 6 JT SC 348 and Jsrar v. State of
UP., 12005) 9 SCC 616, relied on.

3.1. In the scheme oflPC, culpable homicide is the genus and "murder",
its specie. All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice versa. Speaking
generally, "culpable homicide" sans "special characteristics of murder is B
culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the purpose of fixing
7 punishment proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, IPC practically
recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be
called, "culpable homicide of the first degree". This is the gravest form of
culpable homicide, which is defined in s.300 as "murder". The second may c
be termed as "culpable homicide of the second degree". This is punishable
under the first part ofs.304. Then, there is "culpable homicide of the third
degree". This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment
provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three
grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part
ofs.304. (Para 16) (789-D, E, F] D

3.2. Clause (b) ofs.299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) ofs.300.
,,
The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the
knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being
in,such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused
to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not
E
in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal
health or condition. It is noteworthy that the "intention to cause death" is not
an essential requirement of clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily
injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury
causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing F
within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by
Illustration (b) appended to s.300. Clause (b) of s.299 does not postulate any
such knowledge on the part of the offender. If the assailant had no knowledge
about the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause
death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, G
_J was intentionally given. In clause (3) ofs.300, instead of the words "likely to
cause death" occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of s.299, the words
"sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been used. Obviously, the
distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The
difference between clause (b) of s.299 and clause (3) of s.300 is one of degree
of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. The word
"likely" in clause (b) of s.299 conveys the sense of probability as distinguished
from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury ... sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable"
B result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature. !Paras
18, 19) 1790-G, H; 791-A, B, C, D, E, F, G)

3.3. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that the
offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the
C intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. !Para 20) (799-H)

Rajwani' Singh v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1966) SC 1874 and Virsa Singh
v. State of Punjab* AIR (1958) SC 465, relied on.

4. The test laid down by Virsa Singh case* for the applicability of clause
D "thirdly" is ingrained in Indian legal system and has become part of the rule
of law. Under clause thirdly of s.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 intention of
causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is
E 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 death viz. that the injury
found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. !Para 24)
(793-D, E)

State ~f A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, 11976( 4 SCC 382 and Abdul
F Waheed Khan alias Waheed and Ors. v. State of A.P., 120021 7 SCC 175, t
referred to.

5. If the evidence on record is considered on the touchstone principles
set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that the proper conviction would be
s.304 Part I IPC instead of s.302 IPC. The conviction of the appellants is
G accordingly altered from s.302 read with s.149 to s.304 Part I read with s.149
IPC. Custodial sentence of to years would meet the ends of justice. The
findings of the guilt in respect of other offences and the sentences imposed
do not warrant interference. The sentence shall run concurrently. !Para 29)
1794-D, E(

H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 222 of
KALEGURA PADMA RAO"· THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBUC PROSECUTOR[PASAYAT. J.] 785

2007. A
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2006 of the High Court of
Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1114/2005.

S.S. Reddy and S. Usha Reddy for the Appellants.
B
D. Bharathi Reddy, P. Vinay Kumar and Sneha Bhaskaran for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted.
c
2. Appellant along with 14 others was convicted for offences punishable
under Sections 148, 448 read with Section 149, Section 302 read with Section
149 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short the '!PC'). The III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar found all the
accused persons guilty of the charged offences. For the offence under Section D
302 read with Section 149 IPC each of the accused persons was sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with
default stipulation. Similarly, for the offences relatable to Sections 148, 448,
149 and 324 !PC different sentences were imposed. In appeal, the High Court
confirmed the conviction and sentence as imposed by the Trial Court on the
present appellants and accused nos. 7 to 9, 12 and 13. The High Court E
directed acquittal of rest of the accused persons of all charges.

3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :

PW-I is the wife, PW-2 is the father, PW-3 is the mother, PW-4 is the
brother and PW-5 is the sister-in-law of Pogula Jasan (hereinafter referred to F
as the 'deceased'). The accused, deceased and the material witnesses are
residents of Neerukulla village. The deceased purchased an Auto and was
plying the same between Sulthanabad and Neerukulla. On 02.07.2003 at about
9.00 P.M., the deceased returned to his house from Sulthanabad and informed
PWs. l to 3 that when he requested A-1 and A-2 to travel in his Auto as per G
the serial number, they refused to travel in his Auto and beat him.

4. On 03.07.2003 morning, PW-I and the deceased went to the house
of the Sarpanch and told him about the incident. The Sarpanch called A-I and
enquired from him as to why he had assaulted the deceased. A- I admitted
his guilt in the presence of PWs. 9 and 10. On the same day at about 6.00 H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A P.M., A-I to A-16 came to the house of the deceased and attacked him. ~- ......_
1 beat the deceased with a stick. The deceased ran into the house and bolted
the door. In the meantime, when PW-2 intervened to rescue the deceased, A-
1 beat him with a stick. A-3 broke the doors and all the accused entered the
house and beat the deceased. Some of the accused were armed with iron rods
and axes. They beat the deceased indiscriminately. Then the deceased ran out
B from the house. The accused chased and beat him indiscriminately. Finally,
the deceased fell down near the Gram Panchayat office on receipt of the
injuries. Later, the deceased was taken in an Auto to the Government Hospital,
Sulthanabad. On the advice of the Doctor, the persons who carried the ...
deceased to the hospital went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 report.
c On the basis of Ex.P-1, the police registered a crime for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 448, 307, 327 read with 149 ofl.P.C. Thereafter, the
deceased and PW-2, who received injuries, were referred to the Government
Hospital, Karimnagar. The deceased, while undergoing treatment, succumbed
to the injuries. The Inspector of Police took up investigation, prepared the
rough sketch, observed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead
D body of the deceased, seized M.Os. I and 2 and later sent the dead body for
postmortem examination. The accused were arrested and weapons were
recovered .. After completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge
sheet. The· accused denied the charges and claimed for trial.

5. In order to further the prosecution version the prosecution examined
E 22 witnesses: On behalf of the accused persons no oral evidence was adduced,
but part of the statement of PW-3 recorded under Section 161 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was marked as Ext.D-1. On
consideration of the material on record the Trial Court as noted above recorded
conviction. The convicted accused persons preferred appeals before the High
F Court and by common judgment in four appeals the impugned judgment was
passed. 1

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused persons
submitted that the conviction is based primarily on the evidence of witnesses
who were related to the deceased. Further the accusations even if accepted
G in toto do not make out the case relatable to Section 302 !PC.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported
the impugned judgment submitting that on analysis of evidence on record the
Courts below have come to the right conclusion.

H 8. In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R.

A the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on
their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the
reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to
concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one
which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in
'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' AIR (1952) SC 54 at p.59. We find,
B however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of
the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."

12. Again in Masaiti and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR ( 1965) SC 202 this
Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14):

C · · "But it would, we think, be unre::sonable to contend that evidence
given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it
is t~vidence of partisan or interested witnesses ....... The mechanical
rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that.it is partisan would
invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid
D down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial
approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the
plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan
cannot be accepted as correct."

13. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh,
E AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lelma v. State ofHaryana, [2002) 3 SCC 76. Stress
was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered
by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution
case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of ''falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable.
Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is
F sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number
of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty
of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from
grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding
the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other
G accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular
would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim ''falsus in uno falsus
in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded
as liar. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general
acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It
is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases
H testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The
KALEGURA PADMA RAO'· THE STATE OF A.P. REP. RY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PASA VAT, J.]
789

~ ...
doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court A
may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called
'a mandatory rule of evidence'. (See Nisar Ali v. The State of Uuar Pradesh,
AIR (1957) SC 366).

14. The above position was elaborately discussed in Sucha Singh and
Anr. v. Stale of Punjab, (2003) 6 JT SC 348, and lsrar v. State of U.P., [2005] B
9 sec 616.

15. In S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR (2006) SC 2716, it was
'If
observed; Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is
more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make
allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of c
false implication is made. In such cases, the court has t'l adopt a careful
approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

16. This brings us to the crucial question as to which was the appropriate
provision to be applied. In the scheme of IPC culpable homicide is the genus
D
and "murder", its specie. All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice
versa. Speaking generally, "culpable homicide" sans "special characteristics
of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the purpose
.> of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, !PC
practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what
may be called, "culpable homicide of the first degree". This is the gravest form E
of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as "murder". The
second may be termed as "culpable homicide of the second degree". This is
punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is "culpable
homicide of the third degree". This is the lowest type of culpable homicide
and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments
provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable
F
under the second part of Section 304.

17. The academic distinction between "murder" and "culpable homicide
not amounting to murder" has always vexed the courts. The confusion is
caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used G
by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute
abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application
_.
of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the
various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will
be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences:
H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A Section 299 Section 300

A person commits Subject to certain exceptions
culpable homicide if the act by culpable homicide is murder if the
the death is caused is act by which the death is caused
done - is done -
B
INTENTION

(a) with the intention of causing (I) with the intention of causing
death; or death; or

c (b) with the intention (2) with the intention of causing
of causing such su.::h bodily injury as the
bodily injury as is offender knows to be likely to
likely to cause death; or cause the death of the person
to whom the harm is caused; or

D (3) With the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person
and the bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient
in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death; or
E
KNOWLEDGE

(c) with the (4) with the knowledge that the
knowledge that act is so imminently
F the act is likely to dangerous that it must in all
cause death. probability cause death or
such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, and commits
such act without any
excuse for incurring the
G risk of causing death
or such injury as is mentioned above.
!-.

18. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of
Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause
(2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim
H
' I

KALEGURA PADMA RAO"· THE STATE OF A.P REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PASA \'AT. J] 79 J

being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm A
caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm
would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a
person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that the "intention to
cause death" is not an essential requirement of clause (2). Only the intention
of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the
likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient B
to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2)
is borne out by Illustration (b) appended to Section 300.

19. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge
on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under clause (2) of C
Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a fist-blow intentionally
given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged
spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that
particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure
of the heart, as the case may be. Jfthe assailant had no such knowledge about
the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or D
bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the
offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was
intentionally given. In clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words "likely
to cause death" occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the
words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been used. Obviously, E
the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily
injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction
is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The
difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is
one of degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury.
To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines F
whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree.
The word "likely" in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probability
as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury ... sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the
"most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of G
nature.
'
20. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not ne1.;essary that the
offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues frqm the
intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. Rajwant Singh v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1966) SC 1874 is an H
-
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A apt illustration of this point. ,..
21. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (I 958) SC 465 Vivian Bose,
J. speaking for the Court, explained the meaning and scope of clause (3). It
was observed that the prosecution must prove the following facts before it
can bring a case under Section 300 "thirdly". First, it must establish quite
B objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly, the nature of the injury
must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be
proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to
say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of
~
injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the .....
enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of
c the type fust described made up of the three elements set out above was
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the
enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the
intention of the offender.

D 22. The ingredients of clause "thirdly" of Section 300 !PC were brought
out by the illustrious Judge in his terse language as follows :

"12. To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts
before it can bring a case under Section 300 'thirdly';

First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
E
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely
objective investigations.

Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidentai or
F unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry
proceeds further and,

Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described
G made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is
purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the ,l.
intention of the offender."
I

23. The learned Judge explained the third ingredient in the following
H
KALEGURA PADMA RAO•·. THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PASA YAT, J.] 793

-' words (at page 468): A
"The question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious
injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury that
is proved to be present. If he can show that he did not, or if the
totality of the circumstances justify such an inference, then, of course,
the intent that the section requires is not proved. But if there is B
nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it,
the only possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whether
7 he knew of its seriousness, or intended serious consequences, is
neither here nor there. The question, so far as the intention is
concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of C
a particular degree of seriousness, but whether he intended to inflict
the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is proved
the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the
circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion."

24. These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus classicus. D
The test laid down by Virsa Singh case (supra) for the applicability of clause
"thirdly" is now ingrained in our legal system and has become part of the rule
• of law. Under clause thirdly of Section 300 !PC, 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 intention
of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is E
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 death viz. that the injury
found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.

25. Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh case (supra) F
even if the intention of the accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily
injury sufficient to cause death in 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.
G
26. Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300 both require
knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. It is not necessary for
,, the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these
corresponding clauses. It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section
:300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the
H
I

794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from
' -
a particular person or persons - being caused from his imminently dangerous
act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the
offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been
committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as aforesaid.
B
27. 'fhe above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives.
In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the court. But
sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages \
so telescoped into each, that it may not be convenient to give a separate and
C clear cut ,treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages.

28. The position was illuminatingly highlighted by this Court in State
ofA.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, [1976] 4 SCC 382 and Abdul Waheed Khan
alias Waheed and Ors. v. State of A.P., [2002] 7 SCC 175.

D 29. If the evidence on record is considered on the touchstone principles
set out above the inevitable conclusion is that the proper conviction would
be Section 304 Part I !PC instead of Section 302 !PC. The conviction of the
appellants is accordingly altered from Section 302 read with Section 149 to
Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years
would meet the ends of justice. The findings of the guilt in respect of other
E offences and the sentences imposed do not warrant interference. The sentence
shall run concurrently.

30. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

D.G. Appeal party allowed.
F