Holding

The conviction under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable; it must be reduced to Section 304 Part I IPC.

Summary

The appellant, Mangesh, was angry that his sister Sandhya was in a love affair with Prashant, the deceased, and on a night he saw them together he stabbed Prashant three times with a knife. Prashant died three days later. The trial court and the High Court convicted Mangesh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the act was pre‑meditated murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering the nature of the injuries, the force used, and the absence of intent to kill. The Court held that the stabbing was done in a sudden loss of self‑control, the blows were not delivered with full force, and there was no pre‑meditation, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC. Consequently, the conviction was altered to culpable homicide and a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was imposed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant's act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Whether there was pre‑meditation or intention to cause death.
Whether the nature and force of the injuries indicate an intention to kill.
Whether the contradictions in the dying declarations affect the materiality of the evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304(1), s. 307

Subjects

murderculpable homicideintentpremeditationloss of self‑controldying declarationknife assaultIPC sentencing

Judgment

[2011) 1 S.C.R. 72

A MANG ESH
v. --,--
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2011)
JANUARY 05, 2011
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

Penal code, 1860: s. 302 - Murder- Accused's sister had
love affair with the victim-deceased which was not liked by the
c accused - On the fateful day at odd hours, when accused saw
the deceased with his sister, he assaulted him with a knife -
Deceased died after three days - Concurrent findings of
courts below that accused stabbed the deceased with a knife
which resulted in his death - Conviction uls.302 anrf .:1ward
D of life sentence - On appeal, held: It was a clear cut case of
loss of self control that the accused caused injuries to
deceased - Blow was not with full force as was apparent from
the medical evidence - Stabbing was twice on thigh and only
once in chest which indicated that there was no intention to
E cause death - The act was not pre-meditated - The accused
had not taken any undue advantage or acted in cruel or in
unusual manner - In the facts and circumstances of the case,
conviction of the accused altered from s.302 to s.304 Part-I
/PC and in order to meet the ends of the justice, ten years
.rigorous imprisonment awarded to him.
F
The prosecution case was that PW-6, the sister of the
appellant had a love affair with the victim (deceased)
which continued for 2-3 years. The appellant did not like
their relationship and had altercations with the deceased
G several times. On the fateful night, the appellant saw the --...::.
deceased and his sister together at 9.15 p.m. He
assaulted the deceased with a knife thrice and ran away
from the spot. PW-6 called the police jeep which took the

H 72
MANGESH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 73

deceased to the hospital. On the way, the deceased made A
a statement of sub-inspector (PW-7) which was treated
as an FIR under Section 307 IPC. The deceased died later
and the FIR was converted to one under Section 302 IPC.
The deceased made two dying declarations, one to PW-
7 and another to the magistrate to the effect that the_ B
appellant had caused knife injuries to him. The trial court
convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High
Court affirmed the same. The instant appeal was filed
challenging the order of the High Court on the ground
that the act of the appellant was not pre-meditated and it c
happened because of sudden provocation.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. It was not the case in any of the dying
declarations that the appellant had pre-meditated or pre- D
planned his actions or was having any information prior
to the incident that the deceased would be found with his
sister at·the place of occurrence. Their meeting might
have been tak~n by the appellant as temerity. Therefore,
it was a clear cut case of loss of self control and in the E _
heat of passion, the ap.pellant caused injuries to
deceased. It was evident from the medical report that the
- -.:- appellant had not given the knife blow with full force,
otherwise, the depth of the injury no.1 would have been
more than just "cavity deep". Undoubtedly, injury No.1 F
had been caused on the vital part of the body of the
deceased but when a person loses his sense he may act
violently and that by itself may riot be a ground to be
considered against him while determining the nature of
t11~ offence. Each case is to be considered on its own G
facts. lil such a case, the entire attending circumstances
must be ..aken into consideration in order to find out the
nature of the actual offence committed. The fact that the
appellant stabbed the deceased twice in the thigh and
-only once in the chest was il'ldicative of a lack of
H1
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A intention to cause death. Had the appellant intended to
kill the deceased, it is unlikely that he would flee from the
scene without having inflicted more injuries on the
deceased. On examining the weapon, the doctor, PW.1
opined that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 could be caused by
B handle of the knife. Death of deceased was not
instantaneous rather he died on third day of the incident.
The appellant had not taken any undue advantage or
acted in cruel or in unusual manner. Thus, the facts and
circumstances of the case require alteration of conviction
c of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-
1 IPC and ends of the justice would be met by awarding
ten years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant. [Paras
12, 15, 16, 17] [79-B-C; 80-D-H; 81-A-B]
Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of
D A.P. AIR 2006 SC 3010 - distinguished.
Kai/ash v. State of M.P. (2006 (11) SCC 420;
Karuppusamy & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 11 SCC
459 - relied on.
E
Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa AIR 2004 SC 4100;
Gali Venkataiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2008 SC
462 - referred to. --r

Case Law Reference:
F
AIR 2006 SC 3010 distinguished Para 13
AIR 2004 SC 4100 referred to Para 14
AIR 2008 SC 462 referred to Para 14
G c2006- c11 > sec 420 relied on Para 16
c2006) 11 sec 459 relied on Para 16
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 14 of 2011.
H
MANGESH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 75

. From the Judgment & Order dated 25.8.2009 of the High A
--r Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal
No. 242 of 2004. . .,)

Gaurav Agarwal for the Appellant.

Shabkar Chillarge, Sanjay V. Kharde and Asha Gopalan B
Nair for the Respondent.

I( J- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and order dated 25.8.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.242/
04 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,
affirming the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 passed by
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial D
, ....:...
' No.366/03 convicting the a'ppellant under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC) and awarding the
sentence of life imprisonment and, in addition thereto a fine of
Rs.1000/- had also been imposed and in default of payment
to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for the period of one E
year.

~--
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
that the appellant's sister Sandhya had a love affair with
Prashant (deceased) which continued for 2-3 years. The
F
appellant was fully aware of the said affair and expressed his
displeasure, having had altercations with Prashant (deceased)
several times. On 30.4.2003, the appellant saw Prashant
(deceased) and his sister Sandhya chatting with each other at
about 9.15 p.m. at a short distance from his house. He
G
assaulted Prashant (deceased) with the knife thrice and ran
away from the spot.

4. The appellant's sister Sandhya (PW.6) called the police
jeep passing through the road. The police shifted Prashant,
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A injured, to hospital and while going to the hospital Prashant
made a statement to PSI Bhaurao Mesh ram (PW. 7) which was ·-,-
treated to be an FIR under Section 307 IPC. As subsequently,
Prashant died, the FIR was converted to one under Section 302
IPC. Prashant made two dying declarations (Exh. 20 and 26),
B one to PSI BhauraoMeshram (PW.7) on 30.4.2003 and another
to Mr. Prakash, Special Judicial Magistrate (PW.3) on 1.5.2003
to the effect that the appellant had caused knife injuries to him. ·
,I.._
II
5. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was
c filed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. In support
of the case, the prosecution examined several witnesses,
however, the eye-witnesses including Sandhya (PW.6) did not
support the case of the prosecution and they were declared
hostile. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record
and the arguments made by learned counsel for prosecution
D as well as the defence, convicted the appellant under Section
.>,
302 IPC vide judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 awarding
the life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment fof'1he
period of one year.
E
6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal
Appeal No.242/04 which has been dismissed vide impugned
judgment and order dated 25.8.2009. Hence, this appeal. --~

7. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the
F
appellant has made large number of submissions regarding the
veracity of the evidence on record; pointed out contradictions
in two dying declarations; prosecution case was not supported
by any of the eye-witnesses including Sandhya (PW.6) who had
called the police jeep which had taken Prashant (deceased)
G to the hospital; and the p;mchnama witnesses of the recovery
of knife also did not support the case of the prosecution.
However, realising the fact that there have been concurrent
findings of fact by the two courts below, wherein after
c~nsidering the contentions of the defence in detail the courts
H
MANGESH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 77
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

have recorded the finding that there was no material A
-.- contradiction in both the dying declarations and the conviction
could be based solely on the said dying declarations, he
restricted his case only to the nature of offence. It has been
submitted by Mr. Agrawal that as the act of the appellant had
not been pre-meditated and it all happened because of sudden B
provocation, conviction could be only under Section 304, Part
1 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
~

8. Mr. Shabkar Chillarge, learned counsel appearing for
the State has submitted that considering the gravity of injuries,
no interference is required with the impugned judgment by this
c
Court. The appellant has rightly been convicted under Section
302 IPC. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

9. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. D
~~

10. The admitted facts, in the case, have been that the love
affair of Sandhya, sister of the appellant, continued with
Prashant (deceased) for 2-3 years. The appellant did not like
the relationship and had altercations with Prashant (deceased)
E
several times. On seeing both of them together at an odd hour
i.e. 9.15 P.M. on 30th April, 2003, he suddenly assaulted
Prashant with knife and caused stab injuries. Later on, Prashant
"""' (deceased) succumbed to the said injuries and died on 2nd
May, 2003. The following injuries were found on his body as
per the postmortem report:
F

(i) Stitched wound over left side of chest 9th intercostal
space in posterior auxiliary line of size 1 cm x 0.5
cm angles and margins clear cut cavity deep.
_:y.
G
(ii) Continued abrasion left shoulder, anterior aspect 3
cm x 0.5 cm, reddish.

(iii) Grazed abrasion over left arm, anterior aspect 4 cm
x 3 cm, reddish brown.
H
•
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A (iv) Contused abrasion over dorsum of left hand, 3 cm
'r·
x 2 cm, reddish brown.

(v) Stab wound in the mid of 'right thigh medial aspect
1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, angles and
margins clean ..
B
(vi) Stab wound over right thigh; ·lateral° aspect in its
middle 4.5 cm x 1.5 cm, muscle deep, angles arid .....
margins clear cut.

c Doctor Amit Kumar (PW.1) found the following internal
injuries:

(i) Internal injuries to thorax cut injury to the parietal pleura
corresponding to the .injury no. 1.
·o (ii) Internal injury to diaphragm cut injury through and >-
I through corresponding to injury no. 1.

(iii) Peritoneum cut injury to peritoneum corresponding to
injury no. 1.
E
(iv) Cut injury to left gastric artery, cut injury to outer layer
of stomach cut injury to peritoneum corresponding to injury
no. 1. r

Cause of death was opined to be hemorrhagic shock due
F to stab injury.

In the opinion of the doctor, injury no.1 was of grave nature
and proved to be fatal. Injury nos.2, 3, and 4 were simple injuries.
Injury nos. 5 and 6 did not cause any internal damage. ·
G 11. In both dying declaratioFls made by Prashant
(deceased), the contradiction had been regarding place of
injuries and nothing else which has been held by both the courts
below to be immaterial. What is material in both the dying
declarations that on seeing Pra.shant, deceased and Sandhya
H
- MANGESH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
79

together, appellant got annoyed and immediately took out the A
-41
knife which he had with him and gave three blows on the body
of deceased.

12. It is evident from the medical report that the appellant
has not given the knife blow with full force. Otherwise, the depth B
of the injury No.1 would have been more than just "cavity deep".
The fact that the appellant stabbed the deceased twice in the
thigh and only once in the chest is indicative of a lack of
intention to cause death. Had the appellant intended to kill the
deceased, it is unlikely that he would flee from the scene without
having inflicted more injuries on the deceased.
c

13. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
State, Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of
A.P., AIR 2006 SC 3010, is quite distinguishable from the
present case as in that case the knife blow that caused death D
-<i..__ was given with full force and the single injury was found to be
t~c:m. deep. Even in that case the law has been laid down
as under:

'The intention to cause death can be gathered generally E
from a combination of a few or several of the following,
among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon
used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused
- "" or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is
aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force
F
employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the
course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there
was any premeditation; (vii) whether there·was any prior
enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii)
.Jr- whether there was any grave anr' · udden provocation, and G
if so, the cause for such provoca\1vn; (ix) whether it was in
the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the
injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel
and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A single blow or several blows. The above list of
circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may ~

be several other special circumstances with reference to
individual cases which may throw light on the question of
intention".
B
14. This Court has re-iterated the same view in Sridhar
Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, AIR 2004 SC 4100; and Gali
Venkataiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 462.
~
15. It is not the case even in any of the dying declarations
c that the appellant had premeditated or preplanned his actions
or was having any information prior to the incident that the
deceased would be found with his sister Sandhya at the place
of occu_rrence. Their meeting might have been taken by the
appellant as temerity. Therefore, it is a clear cut case of loss
D of self control and in the heat of passion, the appellant caused
injuries to Prashant (deceased). By no means, can it be held >
to be a case of premeditation. The appellant did not cause all
the injuries on the vital part of the body. Nor the appellant
caused the fatal injury No.1 with full force, otherwise the said
E injury could have been very deep. On examining the weapon,
Dr. Amit Kumar (PW.1) opined that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 could
be caused by handle of the knife. Death of Parshant
(deceased) was not instantaneous rather he died on third day
-r-
of the incident. The appellant has not taken any undue
advantage or acted in cruel or in unusual manner.
F
16. Undoubtedly, injury No.1 had been caused on the vital
part of the body of the deceased but it must also be borne in
mind that when a person loses his sense he may act violently
and that by itself may not be a ground to be considered against
G him while determining the nature of the offence. Each case is ----f--_
to be considered on its own facts, however, taking a holistic
view of the matter. In such a case, the entire attending
circumstances must be taken· into consideration in order to find
out the nature of the actual offence committed. (See: Kai/ash
H
MANGESH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 81
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
\. State of M.P.~ "{2006 (11) SCC 420; and Karuppusamy & A
Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 11 SCC 459.)

17. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the case require
alteration of conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC
to Section 304 Part-I IPC and ends of the justice would be met 8
by awarding ten years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant.
Ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.

D.G. Appeal disposed of.