Supreme Court of India
RAHIMBUXversusSTATE OF M.P.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 633
- Decided
- 12 May 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A K MATHUR
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 IPC is well‑founded and cannot be altered to Section 304‑1 or 304‑11 IPC.
Summary
The appellant, Rahim Bux, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering his brother-in-law while chasing his brother-in-law with a sword after a quarrel. The appellant argued that he only intended to injure the brother-in-law and that the death of the brother was accidental, seeking to have the conviction altered to Section 304‑1 or 304‑11 IPC. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the appellant deliberately armed himself with a sword, pursued the intended target, and, when failing to strike him, intentionally inflicted a fatal blow on the innocent brother. The Court held that the intention to cause serious injury, which resulted in death, satisfied the mens rea for murder under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC can be altered to Section 304‑1 or Section 304‑11 IPC on the ground that the accused did not intend to cause death.
- Whether the appellant's intention to cause serious injury, which resulted in death, amounts to the intention required for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 25
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304-1, s. 304-11, s. 323
Subjects
murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderintentionalteration of convictionIPC Section 302IPC Section 304-1IPC Section 304-11Arms Actcriminal law
Judgment
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 213
_)..
RAHIM BUX A
V.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No.861 of 2008)
MAY 12, 2008
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ].
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 323, 304-1 and 304-11- Al-
teration of conviction u/s. 302 to s. 304-1 ors. 304-11- Tenabil-
ity of - Accused chasing ifl'lformant with sword and on his fail-c
ure to catch him, he caused fatal injury to informant's brother
who was standing there - Conviction u/ss. 302 and 323 by
courts below - Held: Case for alteration of conviction from s.
302 to s. 304-1 or 304-11 not made out- Intention was predomi-
nantly present in the mind of accused when he chased infor-
D
mant to inflict serious injury to him and he satisfied his inten-
tion by inflicting murde1ous blow on informant's brother-inno-
cent bystander who did not provoke the accused for murder-
ous act - Thus, conviction u/s 302 justified.
According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day E
when appellant was quarrelling with his father-in-law, in-
formant-AK intervened to save him. Thereafter, appellant
inflicted injury to AK and chased him but AK ran away.
~
Appellant went to his house and came out with a sword
and chased AK to attack him. AK managed to escape but F
his brother was standing there. Appellant attacked him
with a sword and caused him fatal injury. AK-PW-1 lodged
an FIR. lnvestigation·was carried out. Trial court convicted
the appellant u/s.302, 323 IPC rlw s. 25 of the Arms Act
and sentenced him accordingly. High Court upheld the
G
-/>. conviction. Hence the present appeal.
Appellant contended that the accused did not intend
to cause fatal injury to the deceased; and that it was only
a single blow not intended to cause the death but intended
213 H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
.....
A to attack the other brother who was out of reach, thus it
did not fall u/s 302 but would fall u/s 304-1 or s.304-111.P.C.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is no two opinion that the present
B injury was inflicted on the deceased as supported by AK-
PW-1 and the testimony of PWs. 2 and 3 and the medical
evidence corroborated by recovery of sword. Therefore, ~
so far as the voluntarily causing injury to the deceased
by the accused is concerned, there is no two opinion and
c the same has been fully substantiated by the relevant
evidence. (Para 5) [218-B-C]
1.2 The intention of the accused is more than appar-
ent that he went to his house and brought a sword and
wanted to chase AK. He intended to inflict serious injury to
D AK but unfortunately on his failure he made the deceased ...
a victim. Nobody, chases person with sword for any be-
nevolent purpose. It is unfortunate instead of causing the
death of AK the accused caused the death of his brother. It
is nothing but change of malice from one brother to an-
E other brother. From these facts it is not a case in which the
benefit of s. 304-1 or s. 304-11 IPC can be given to the ac-
cused. One has to see the intention and the intention of
the accused in the instant case is more than apparent that
he chased AK with sword and on his failure to catch hold
of AK with sword, he caused the death of an innocent by- 4.
F
stander who has not given any provocation to the accused
for the murderous act. It is the intention which was pre-
dominantly present in his mind when the accused chased
AK and therefore, this intention he satisfied by inflicting
the murderous blow on the deceased on his vital part of
G
body. Therefore, under these circumstances, the convic-
tion of the appellant u/s 302 IPC is well founded and there
is no ground to interfere. (Para 5) [218-E-H; 219-A-B]
1.3 So far as converting the case from s. 302 l.P.C. to
H s. 304-1 or 304-11 IPC each case has its peculiar facts and
RAHIMBUX v. 215
STATE OF M.P. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
justification for converting the offence from s. 302 IPC to s. A
304-1 ors. 304-11 IPC. Therefore, in the circumstances of the
instant case, there is no merit to convert the offence u/s 302
IPC to either s. 304-1 IPC. ors. 304-11 IPC. (Para 6) [219-CD]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.861 of 2008 B
From the final Judgment & Order dated 2.9.2005 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. Appeal No.
49 of 2000
Rachana Joshi lssar, Ru pal Bhatia and Ajay Thakur for the C
Appellant.
Siddartha Dave, Jemtiben AO and Vibha Datta Makhija
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.9.2005
passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed E
the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter to be referred to as 'l.P.C') read with Section
25 of the Arms Act and sentence imprisonment for life and pay-
ment of fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer further imprisonment F
for a period of two months under Section. 302 of the l.P.C., and
simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Sec-
tion 323, l.P.C. and' Section 25 of the Arms Act on each count
and directed that both the sentences to run concurrently. Ag-
grieved against this order the present appeal was filed by the G
accused. Notice was given on the limited question of the of-
fence.
3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this ap-
peal ·are that Aslam Khan, P.W.1 lodged a report to the effect \ .•
that on 8.6.1998 at about 4.00 P.M. the appellant was quarrel- H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A ling with his father-in-law. Therefore, he tried to intervene by
persuading the appellant not to beat the old person. Being an-
noyed, the appellant inflicted injury on him by piece of brick.
After receiving this injury, P.W.1 ran away from that place. There-
after, the appellant went to his house and came out with a sword
B and chased him to cut him with the sword but somehow he es-
caped and did not come within his reach. His brother, Rehman
Khan who was standing in front of the house was attacked by
the appellant with the sword which caused abdominal injury with
intestine coming out of the wound. The deceased Rehman Khan
c was immediately shifted to the Hospital along with Aslam Khan.
Dr. M.P. Garg, on examination found an incised wound in the
abdominal region of Rel1man Khan and the doctor immediately
shifted him to the operation theatre for treatment by surgical
specialist. As.lam Khan was also treated for his injuries sus-
D tained by the brick. Subsequently, Rehman Khan succumbed
to his injuries. A panchnama was made and the dead body was
..
sent for post-mortem. It was found that the deceased had in-
cised wound 1 %" X3/4"X cavity deep on abdominal region near
umbilical cord. Subsequently, during the investigation the sword
in which the deceased was attacked was recovered. After
E completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the
accused. Learned Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial
convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302, l.P.C.,
Section 323, 1.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sen-
tenced him as aforesaid. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred
F before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court
affirmed the conviction of the accused- appellant. Hence, the
present appeal. The limited question to be examined is with
regard to the nature of offence.
G 4. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged
before us that there is only one injury caused to the deceased.
Therefore, it does not fall under Section 302, I .P.C. but at best it
would fall under Section 304-1 or Section 304-11 of the 1.P.C. as
the accused did not inflict any second injury and secondly, the
H accused did not intend to cause any injury to the deceased so
RAHIMBUXv. 217
-.f
STATE OF M.P. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
as to cause his death. The accused in fact wanted to attack A
Aslam Khan but since Aslam Khan was out of reach, therefore,
he inflicted the injury to his brother, Rehman Khan who was
standing there. The accused- appellant did not intend to cause
death to the deceased and as such the case does not fall within
. the parameters of Section 302,1.P.C. and at best it can be un- B
,_Ji\
der Section 304-11, l.P.C. In support of this contention, learned
counsel cited the following decisions of this Court.
i) (1981) 4 sec 245
Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab. c
ii) (1981) 4 sec 489
Randhir Singh alias Dhire v. State of Punjab.
-j, iii) (1983) 2 sec 342
D
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab
iv) (1981) 3 S.C.R 658
Gokul Parashram Patil v. State of Maharashtra .
v) 2004 (2) SCALE 217 E
C,howa Mandal & Anr. V. State of Bihar (Now
Jharkhand)
>-- vi) (2004) 12 sec 250
Ramu v. State of U.P. F
vii) 1995 supp.(3) sec 472
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab.
viii) [1958]S.C.R. 1495 G
Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab.
Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to seek sup-
port on the aforesaid decisions to show that in fact the accused
in the present case did not intend to cause fatal injury to the
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A deceased and it was only a single blow not intended to cause
the death but intended to attack the other brother, Aslam Khan
who was out of reach. As against this, learned counsel for the
State supported the judgment of the High Court.
5. We have bestowed our best of consideration to the facts
B of the present case. There is no two opinion that the present
injury was inflicted on the deceased as supported by P.W.I and
the testimony of P.Ws.2 & 3 and the medical evidence corrobo-
rated by recovery of sword. Therefore, so far as the voluntarily
causing injury to the deceased by the accused is concerned,
C there is no two opinion and the same has been fully substanti-
ated by the relevant evidence. In fact, the only question is whether
offence under Section 302, l.P.C. is made out of Section 304-1,
or 304-11 l.P.C . is made out. It is a fact that the accused was
chasing Aslam Khan and when he was out of his reach, the ac-
D cused went to his house and brought out a sword to attack Aslam
Khan but somehow, Aslam Khan managed to escape from the
spot. But unfortunately, his brother- the deceased was standing
in front of his house and the accused on his failure to cause the
serious harm to Aslam Khan gave the murderous blow to the
E deceased which ultimately became fatal. So far as the intention
of the accused is concerned, it is more than apparent that he
went to his house and brought a sword and wanted to chase
Aslam Khan. Therefore, the intention of the accused is appar-
ent, he intended to inflict serious injury to Aslam Khan but unfor-
F lunately on his failure he made the deceased a victim. There-
fore, from this his intention is apparent. Nobody, chases person
with sword for any benevolent purpose. It is unfortunate, instead
of causing the death of Aslam Khan the accused caused the
death of his brother. It is nothing but change of malice from one
G brother to another brother. From these facts we are of opinion
that it is not a case in which the benefit of Section 304-1, 1.P.C.
or Section 304-11, l.P.C. can be given to the accused. One has
to see the intention and the intention of the accused in the present
case is more than apparent that he chased Aslam Khan with
sword and on his failure to catch hold of Aslam Khan with sword
H
RAHIMBUXv. 219
- ;- STATE OF M.P. [AK. MATHUR, J.]
he caused the death of an innocent bystander who has not given A
any provocation to the accused for the murderous act. It is the
intention which was predominantly present in his mind when the
accused chased Aslam Khan and therefore, this intention he
satisfied by inflicting the murderous blow on the deceased on
his vital part of body. Therefore, under these circumstances, we 8
..._'I- are of opinion that the conviction of the appellant under Section
302, l.P.C. is well founded and there is no ground to interfere in
this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our atten-
tion to the various decisions which have been cited above. Each c
case depends on its facts and therefore, the decisions cited
above will not render any assistance to learned counsel for the
appellant. So far as converting the case from Section 302, l.P.C.
to Section 304~1or304-11,1.P.C. is concerned, each case has its
"'' peculiar facts and justification for converting the offence from
Section 302,1.P.C. to Section 304-1 or Section 304-11, l.P.C. How-
D
ever, so far as the present case is concerned, we are satisfied
that the intention of the accused is more than apparent when he
chased Aslam Khan after taking out a sword from his house
and since he could not succeed to cause injury on Aslam Khan E
he diverted his malice on his brother an innocent person who
was present &gave no cause to this accused. Therefore, under
these circumstances, we do not find any merit to convert the
,. offence under Section 302,1.P.C. to either Section 304-1, l.P.C.
or Section 304-11, l.P.C. Consequently, there is no merit in the F
present appeal and the same is dismissed.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search