Supreme Court of India
MAYANDIversusSTATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 442
- Decided
- 28 July 2010
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- H S BEDIC K PRASAD
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 326 IPC as the injuries did not cause the death and there was no intention or knowledge of death.
Summary
The appellant, a kitchen employee of a hotel, attacked the managing director with a concealed sickle, inflicting multiple injuries. The victim, a known heart patient who had undergone angioplasty, died the following day; medical evidence attributed death to myocardial infarction and not to the injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 506(II) and 341 of the IPC, a decision upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the injuries caused the death and whether the appellant had the requisite intention or knowledge for murder or culpable homicide. Finding no medical opinion linking the injuries to death and noting the appellant’s lack of knowledge of the victim’s heart condition, the Court held that the case fell under Section 326 (grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon) rather than Sections 302 or 304. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 was altered to Section 326, with a sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, while the other convictions were left unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the death of the victim was caused by the injuries inflicted by the appellant, thereby attracting conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the appellant can be held liable under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide) in the absence of intention or knowledge of death.
- Whether the appropriate charge is under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304(1), s. 304(2), s. 326, s. 341, s. 506(II)
Subjects
murderculpable homicidegrievous hurtmedical causationIPC 302IPC 304IPC 326intentionknowledgedangerous weapon
Judgment
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 127
MAYAN DI A
v.
STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2010)
JULY 28, 2010
B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 326 - Injuries by sickle caused to victim - Death of c
victim - Medical evidence stating that victim died due to
complications arising out of heart disease and that there was
no suggestion that the death was a result of the injuries -
Conviction by trial court u/ss 302, 506(11) and 341 affirmed by
High Court - HELD: It is the admitted fact that the Doctors
0
have not opined that the death was caused due to the injuries
caused by the appellant - There is also no evidence to show
that the injuries could have independently caused the death
of the deceased even if the deceased had not been suffering
fro;11 a heart problem - It is also the conceded position that
the deceased had a serious heart problem which was a matter E
not within the appellant's knowledge and on the contrary the
medical evidence reveals that the victim had undergone an
angioplasty but had nevertheless suffered a heart attack
thereafter- In this background, the High Court's assertion that
the death was occasioned by complications on account of the F
injuries caused by the appellant is not quite accurate - The
case would fall within s. 326 and not uls 302- As there was
no intention on the part of appellant to cause the death of the
deceased nor could he be ·attributed with the knowledge that
death would be caused, the case would not fall u/s 304 (part- G
I) - Conviction of the accused for the offence uls 302 is altered
to one uls 326 with a sentence of 10 years R. I. and a fine of
Rs. 5, 0001- - The sentence under the other provisions is
maintained.
127 H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1501 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No. 679 of 2006.
B R. Shunmugha Sundaram, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle
and Prabhu Ramasubramanian for the Appeallant.
Sundravardan, S. Thananjayan for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
c ORDER
Leave granted.
We had issued notice only with regard to the nature of the
D offence on 14th September 2009.
We have heard the learned counsel for both parties.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal
are as under:
E The appellant was an employee working in the kitchen of
Palmgrove Hotel, Chennai. At about 6.15 a.m. on 8th February
2.005, the deceased Tr. Manickaraja Bala, the Managing
Director of the hotel, came to the store room for carrying out a
store check. As the deceased was returning to his office after
F checking the store, the appellant Dattacked him with a sickle
which he had concealed on his person. When the deceased
tried to escape, the appellant made a further attack on him and
caused him several injuries on his body and on his hands as
well. PW.1-Tr. Raghavendran, PW.3-P.S.R. Aziri, PW.4-Tr.
G Pravin Padival who were around the place came rushing to the
rescue the deceased but the appellant nevertheless ran away
from the spot. PW.2, PW.4 and several others then took the
deceased to the Apollo hospital where he was admitted to the
Intensive Care Unit.
H A FIR was thereafter recorded for an offence punishable
MAYANDI v. STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE 129
under Sections 307 etc. of the l.P.C. and on the death of the A
injured at about 3.30 a.m. on 9th February 2005 the case was
altered to one under Section 302 etc. of the IPC.
The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence
convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under B
Sections 302, 506 (II) and 341 of the IPC. This judgment was
maintained by the High Court as well. It is in this situation that
the matter is before us today.
Mr. R.Shunmugham Sundram, the learned senior counsel
for the appellant has pointed out that a bare perusal of the C
injuries, the post-mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor
would show that the injuries caused by the appellant were not
the cause of his death and he had in fact died of Myocardial
Infarction leading to heart failure. He has further submitted that
the fact that the deceased was already a heart patient and had o
undergone angioplasty was a fact not within the knowledge of
the appellant and in this view of the matter a case under Section
302 IPC was not , spelt out.
Mr. R. Sunderavardan, the learned senior counsel for the
respondent has however pointed out that even assuming that E
the immediate cause of death was the Myocardial Infarction and
not the injuries caused to the deceased but in the light of the
admitted fact that the appellant was an employee of the hotel
of which the deceased was the Managing Director and that very
severe injuries had indeed been caused with a sickle, required F
that the appellant would be punishable under Section 304 Part-
1, IPC.
We have considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel.
G
We reproduce the injuries found on the dead body of the
deceased at the time of the post-mortem.
"Bandage seen over left forearm and right forearm
below right below. Elastocreps bandage seen on top of H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A left shoulder, Front of chest and back of chest.
An Elastocreps bandage on the right side of the neck.
1. Left shoulder - on removal of plaster:
A stapled sutured wound seen on the front of outer third
B
of lest chest (crossing top of the outer as aspect of the left
shoulder) extending up to outer aspect of back of left side
chest. The total length is 16 ems.
A metallic wire is seen on the outer aspect of the left
c shoulder cm long on removal of the sutures (staples) the
acromio-calvicular joint was fixed with a tension bank wire.
The surrounding soft tissues were found repaired 16 x 1.5
cm x bone deep.
2. Right hand - curved sutured would seen over the right
D
palm extending from the volar aspect of the right wrist
passing through the right thenar eminence extending to the
base of right thumb on the dorsal aspect. The total length
is 18 c.m.
E On removal of sutures the margins are regular - On further
dissection the underlying muscles of the right thumb,
nerves, blood vessels were found repaired 18 x 3 ems.
Muscle deep.
3. A sutured wound on the palmer aspect of the left thumb
F in the middle third.A curved sutured would seen over the
left thenar eminence 6 cm Long. On removal of the sutures
the margins are clean out, the underlying muscles found
repaired 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep.
G HEART
An old vertical midline scar 18 cm Long seen in the midline
of chest extending down from the suprasternal notch. On
opening the thorax the underlying sternum was found
sutured with stainless steel wire (old) on further dissection
H
MAYANDI v. STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE 131
the heart was found grossly ·enlarged with increase in A
pericardia! fat.
On dissection of the heart massive atheromatous changes
seen in the root of: aorta. Coronary artery by pass site
made out and stend in situ. Heart sent for Histopathological B
examination. Coronary vessels found narrowed."
PW.13 also noted that the deceased had died due to
complications arising out of Myocardial infarction and admitted
that in the·post-'mortem report there was no suggestion that the
death was a result of the injuries. c
The learned counsel has also brought to our notice the
death summary (Ext.p.8) which had been recorded in Apollo
hospital by the attending Doctor (PW.8) who stated that as the
deceased had lost a great deal of blood as the blood vessels
had been cut and complications had arisen on account of his D
age (which was about 70 years) and was already a heart patient,
the cause of death was:
Coronary Artery disease : Acute Coronary
Syndrome, Post Coronary Revascularisation status,
E
practical post, Coronary artery bypass and post stent.
Post-hand surgery status and Diabetes mellitus. Since he
was .already having heart disease bypass surgery had
been done to him. Afterwards heart trouble had occurred
to him."
F
Keeping in mind the said facts the High Court observed
that:
"In view of the above categorical evidence of PW.8
and PW.13, we are of the considered view that though it
had been stated in Post Mortem report that the death was G
due to the · complications of Myocardial Infarction, such
complications is directly attributed to the injuries inflicted
by the accused which resulted in interruption of the free
flow of the blood not only to the various vital organs but also
the heart and therefore the contention of the learned Senior H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R.
A counsel for the accused is liable to be rejected and
accordingly the same is rejected."
We have considered the reasons given by the High Court
and also considered the evidence above referred.
B It is the admitted fact that the Doctors have not opined that
the death was caused due to the injuries caused by the
appellant. There is also no evidence to show that the injuries
could have independently caused the death of the deceased
even if the deceased had not been suffering from a heart
c problem. It is also the conceded position that the deceased had
a serious heart problem which was matter not within the
appellant's knowledge and on the contrary the medical evidence
reveals that he had undergone an angioplasty but had
nevertheless suffered a heart attack thereafter.
D In this background the High Court's assertion that the
death was occasioned by complications on account of the
injuries caused by the appellant is not quite accurate. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the case would fall within Section
326 of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC thereof.
E
.Mr. R. Sundravardan's argument that this matter would
nevertheless fall within Section 304 Part-I or Part -11 of the IPC,
is also rejected as there was no intention on the part of
appellant to cause the death of the deceased nor could he be
F attributed with the knowledge that death would be caused.
We accordingly partly allow this appeal, set aside the
acquittal and conviction of the appellant for the offence under
Section 302 of the IPC, and alter his conviction to one under
Section 326 of the IPC and award a sentence of 10 years R.I.
G and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, six months R.I.
The sentence under the other provisions of the IPC is
maintained.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
H R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search