STATE OF KARNATAKAversusCHIKKAHOTTAPPA @ VARADE GOWDA & ORS.

                             [2008] 8 S.C.R. 1167


.. Ji.                    STATE OF KARNATAKA                          A
                                      V.
            CHIKKAHOTTAPPA @ VARADE GOWDA & ORS.
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2001)
                                MAY 16, 2008
                                                                      B
           (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB
   )i                         ALAM,JJ.)

              Penal code, 1860, SS 148, 302 rlw s. 149 :
               Murder - Rivalry between eight accused persons and c
         deceased -Accused persons assaulted deceased with weap-
         ans causing multiple injury on his body which resulted in his
         death - Accused, A4 allegedly Assaulted by deceased and
         other causing serious injuries - Fl.R. lodged by mother of de-
         ceased and complaint by A4 - Investigation - Charge sheet D
         - Trial Court found all the accused persons guilty of commit-
         ting offences punishable uls 148, 302 rlw S. 149 /PC and sen-
         fenced them to R. I. for life and also imposed fine - Convic-
         tion altered uls 326 rlw S. 149 /PC by High Court acquitting
         accused A4 - Correctness of - Held : In correct - Accused E
         persons inflicted multiple injuries on the body of the deceased
         - Most of injuries were deep incised wounds of varying sizes -
         Intention of assailants as established by the evidence of the
         witness was to cause the death of the deceased and not to
         cause grievous injury - Hence, the judgment of High Court F
         altering conviction from s. 302 rlw s. 149 /PC to S. 326 rlw s.
         149 /PC not sustainable and set aside restoring the convic-
         tion and the sentence imposed by Trial Court - Sentencing.
              Words & Phrases
                                                                      G
             'Unlawful assembly' 'common object' 'common intention'
    ~    - meaning of in the context of s. 149 !PC.
             According to the prosecutrix, (there was some rivalry
         between the accused persons and the deceased and oth-
                                  1167                                H
    1168    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2008) 8 S.C.R.


A ers). Allegedly eight accused persons, members of an           .}.__
                                                                         ~



  unlawful assembly assaulted the deceased with machus,
  sticks and wooden reaper, the deceased succumbed to
  injuries. PW1 mother of the deceased lodged an F.l.R. in
  the Police Station. Accused no.4 also received injuries of
B serious nature and admitted to the hospital and he also
  filed a complaint in the Police Station that the deceased
  and two other persons had assaulted him on the day of
  occurrence. The police after completion of investigation        "
  submitted the charge sheet against accused persons.
c Trial Court found all the accused persons guilty of the
  offences punishable u/s.302 r/w.s.149 IPC and sentenced
  them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and im-
  posed fine etc. High Court affirmed conviction of all the
  accused persons except A4, acquitting him of the of-
  fences charged but altered the conviction of accused
D
  persons u/s. 326 r/w.S.149 IPC. Hence the present appeal.
        Appellant-State contended that the reasons indicated
  by the High Court are palpably wrong and cannot be sus-
  tained; that the intention of the unlawful assembly was
E clear from the weapons held by the assailants; That the
  injuries inflicted on the eyewitnesses i.e. PW1, PW3 and
  PW6 clearly described the role of the accused persons in
  surrounding and assailing the deceased; that the High
  Court has wrongly held that there were only two injuries
F on the head and that the rest of the injuries on the lower
  part of the body and limbs. In fact, there were three inju-
  ries on the head. Additionally, the injuries 6 & 7 clearly
  show the force with which the injuries were inflicted, and
  in fact, injury No.7 shows that a hand was severed; and
  that the doctor's evidence also shows that there were
G
  multiple fractures of base of the occipital bone.
                                                                   ;.    "
        Respondent-accused submitted that the acquittal of
    A4 because of non-explanation of injuries on him by the
    prosecution shows the falsity of the prosecution case;
H
                 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA            1169
                           @ VARADE GOWDA

"   )(   and that the occurrence took place in the course of free A
         fight and therefore the High Court's judgment does not
         warrant any interference.
              Allowing the appeal, the Court
               Held: 1.1 The pivotal question is applicability of Sec-   B
         tion 149 IPC, said provision has its foundation on con-
         structive liability which is the sine qua non for its opera-
         tion. The emphasis is on the common object and not on
         common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assem-
         bly cannot render a person liable unless there was a com-       c
         mon object and he was actuated by that common object
         and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 IPC.
         Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not
         proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with
         the heip of Section 149 IPC. [Para 6] [1176-C-D]
                                                                         D
               1.2 It cannot be laid down as a general proposition
         of law that unless an overt act is proved against a per-
         son, who is alleged to be a member of unlawful assem-
         bly, it cannot be said that he is a member of such an as-
         sembly. The only thing required is that he should have E
         understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely
         to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of
         Section 141. [Para 6] [1176-E-F]
               1.3 A common object may be formed by express
         agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no F
         means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or
         a few members of the assembly and the other members
         may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not con-
         tinue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or aban-
         doned at any stage. The expression 'in prosecution of G
         common object' as appearing in Section 149 have to be
         strictly construed as equivalent to 'in order to attain the
         common object'. It must be immediately connected with
         the common object by virtue of the nature of the object.
         There must be community of object and the object may H
    1170     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2008] 8 S.C.R.   \
A exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter.                      '<
                                                                       )..
  [Para 6] [1176-G-H; 1177-A-B]
         1.4 'Common object' is different from a 'common in-
    tention' as it does not require a prior concert and a com-
    mon meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if
B   each has the same object in view and their number is five
    or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that
    object. The 'common object' of an assembly is to be as-
    certained from the acts and language of the members                "        '

    composing it, and from a consideration of all the surround-
c   ing circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of
    conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What
    the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a par-
    ticular stage of the incident is essentially a question of
    fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the
D   assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the
    behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the in-
    cident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of
    unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the
    same must be translated into action or be successful.
E   Under the Explanation to Section 141 IPC, an assembly
    which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may sub-
    sequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the
    intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an
    assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the
F   outset. [Para 7] [1177-D-G]
        1.5 The time of forming an unlawful intent is not ma-
  terial. An assembly which, at its commencement or even
  for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently be-
  come unlawful. In other words it can develop during the
G course of incident at the spot eo instante. [Para 7] [177-G-
  H; 1178-A]                                                                 ....
                                                                  >c
         1.6 Section 149, IPC consists of two parts. The first
    part of the section means that the of~ence to be commit-
    ted in prosecution of the common object must be one
H
                                                                             /-
                                                                             ,_.'
                  STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA          1171
                            @VARADE GOWDA

~
      ~
           which is committed with a view to accomplish the com- A
           mon object. In order that the offence may fall within the
           first part, the offence must be connected immediately with
           the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the
           accused was member. Even if the offence committed is
           not in direct prosecution of the common object of the as- 8
           sembly, it may yet fall under Section 141 IPC, if it can be
      ll
           held that the offence was such as the members knew was
           likely to be committed and this is what is required in the
           second part of the section. [Para 8] [1178-B-C]
                1.7 Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down c
           under the circumstances from which the common object
           can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from
           the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour
           at the time of or before or after the occurrence. The word
           'knew' used in the second limb of the section implies D
           something more than a possibility and it cannot be made
           to bear the sense of 'might have been known'. Positive
           knowledge is necessary. When an offence is committed
           in prosecution of the common object, it would generally
           be an offence which the members of the unlawful cissem- E
           bly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the
           common object. That, however, does not make the con-
           verse proposition true; there may be cases which would
           come within the second part but not within the first part.
           The distinction between the two parts of Section 149 IPC, F
           cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every case it would
           be an issue to be detl:)rmined, whether the offence com-
           mitted falls within the first part or it was an offence such
           as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be
           committed in prosecution of the common object and falls
                                                                        G
           within the second part. [Para 8] [1178-E-H; 1179-A-B]
,..   _,
                Chikkarange Gowda and others vs. State of Mysore AIR
           (1956) SC 731 and Chandra & Ors. vs. State of UP and Anr.
           (2004) 5sec   141 - relied on.
                                                                       H
    1172       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A      2.1 In the instant case, there were three injuries on         }..   v

  the head of deceased and injury No.6 was of such nature
  that the plura and lung were exposed. Injury No.7 was a
  deep incised cut injury on right wrist joint. Right hand was
  detached from the body at the level of wrist joint. Further,
B rest of the injuries were not on the lower parts of the body
  as noted by the High Court. In fact the injury No.4 was an
  injury on the right shoulder joint and injury No.5 was a           )i

  deep incised wound 5"x 2"x 1", on middle 1/3'd of right
                                                                           i..
  arm humerous expose. Most of the injuries were deep in-
c cised wounds of varying sizes. Additionally, the multiple
  fractures on the base of the occipital bone was noticed.
  The intention of the assailants as established by the evi-
  dence of the witnesses was the cause of death of the de-
  ceased and not to cause grievous injury. Hence, the judg-
  ment of High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set
D                                                                    ii
  aside. The respondents are convicted for offence pun-
  ishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC in-
  stead of Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC as held by
  the High Court. The sentences imposed by the Trial Court
  stand restored. [Para - 10, 11 &12] [1181-B-F]
E
        CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Ap-
  peal No. 313 of2001
         From the Judgment and final Order dated 9.9.1999 of the
    High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 598/
F   1998
         Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kr. Chawla and A. Rohan Singh for
    the Appellant.
      N.D.B. Raju, Bharathi raju, Guntur Prabhakar and N.
G Ganpathy for the Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
                                                                     ..    .
        Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
  the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
H partially allowing the appeal filed by the respondent who were
                     STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA                1173
                     @ VARADE GOWDA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
  •     ~    convicted for offence punishable under Sections 148,302 read        A
             with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
             'IPC'). By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the
             respondents were to be convicted under Section 148 and Sec-
             tion 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

                  2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution in a       B
        ,,   nutshell are as follows:

                  Eight persons faced trial for allegedly committing murder
             of one Rajanna (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') on
             13.7.1992. It was also alleged that they committed offence pun-     c
             ishable under Sections 143, 147 & 148 IPC. First Information
             Report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged on 13.7.1992 at about
             9.30 p.m.

                    It was alleged that in an incident that took place at
             Bandihalli at about 7 p.m. on 13.7.1992, the eight accused who D
             were members of an unlawful assembly had assaulted the de-
             ceased Rajappa with machus, sticks and a wooden reaper and
             as a result of the injuries sustained by him, he died shortly there-
             after. The accused are all inter-related and there was some ri-
             valry between the two groups which is of a long standing nature E
             and that this was the real reason for the incident. The mother of
             the deceased Ningamma (P.W.I) stated that the accused per-
             sons had come to her house shortly before the incident and
       -+    some of them were armed with machus and remaining persons
             had clubs and a wooden reaper with them. They asked her as F
             to where her son Rajanna was. She informed the persons who
             had come there that Rajanna had gone out and she bolted the
             door because they were in an aggressive mood. According to
             her, they threw stones on the house and once again enquired
             about Rajanna and since she told them that he was not in the
                                                                                  G
,,lo
        .    house, they left the place stating that they would finish him.
             Shortly after this, she went in the direction in which these per-
             sons have proceeded and saw Rajanna approaching from the
             opposite side. On seeing the accused persons, he tried to es-
             cape from them but the accused caught hold of him and se-
                                                                                  H
    1174      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 8 S.C.R.                 ,
                                                                                    I




                                                                       /.-    •
A verely assaulted him. Rajanna fell on the ground with several
  injuries on his head and different parts of the body and the lower
  limbs and that he was bleeding. The accused left the place with
  the weapons stating that Rajanna was finished. Attempt was
  made to take the injured person to the hospital at Huliyurdurga
B in a car. Rajanna died on the way and ultimately, the body was
  taken to the Police Station and from there to the hospital. The
                                                                        '.:
  complainant Ningamma (PW1) lodged the complaint at 9.30
  p.m. and this complaint which has been treated as the F.l.R,
  was ultimately sent to the J.M.F.C., Kunigal, which reached him
c at 7.30 am, the next morning. Accused No.4-Lokesh had also
  sustained two injuries of considerable seriousness on his left
  thigh and right leg respectively and he came to be admitted to
  the hospital at Huliyurdurga on the same evening at about 7.30
  p.m. A-4 had lodged a complaint with the police to the effect
  that deceased Rajanna and two other persons had assaulted
D
  him near his house at about 5.30 p.m. on 13.7.1992 and that he
  had sustained the injuries in the course of that incident. Ulti-
  mately, the Police filed a report in respect of this complaint. As
  far as the complaint lodged by Ningamma is concerned, the
  Police registered an offence being Crime No. 92/1992 under
E Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and after comple-
  tion of the investigation, put up eight accused for trial. The
  learned trial Judge found the eight accused persons guilty of
  the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC
  and convicted all of them and sentenced them to suffer R. I, for
F life under the main charge along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in de-
  fault, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one year. The ac-
  cused were also convicted of offence punishable under Sec-
  tion 148 IPC and imposed fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo
  simple Imprisonment for three months.
G
          3. In appeal, the High Court found thatA4 i.e. Lokesh was    ...    ...
    not guilty but the rest of the accused persons were responsible
    for the death of the deceased. But, however altered the convic-
    tion as noted above. The High Court for the purpose of altering
    the conviction noted as follows:
H
                 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA                 1175
                 @ VARADE GOWDA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
1
     ~        "On behalf of the appellants, it was pointed out to us that      A
              on the basis of the oral evidence, it has not been
              established as to which accused dealt which blow and the
              number of blows that each of the accused had inflicted.
              Secondly, on a careful scrutiny of the medical evidence,
              we find that there is a serious lacunae is in so far as the      B
              doctor has not indicated as to which of them are not. Of
     ~
              the twenty injuries that were found on the person of
              deceased Rajanna, it is true that two of them are on the
              head, the majority of them are aimed at the lower part of
              the body and the limbs and consequently, having bestowed         c
              our very serious attention to the cumulative effect of this
              record. We find that it was incorrect on the part of the trial
              court to have invoked the provisions of Section 302 IPC.
              Having regard to the weapons used and the nature of
              injuries that have been inflicted, the accused would be
                                                                               D
              liable to be convicted of the offence punishable under
              Section 326 read with 149 IPC."
               4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel-
         lant submitted that the reasons indicated by the High Court are
         palpably wrong and cannot be sustained. With reference to the E
         injuries sustained it was submitted that the intention of the un-
         lawful assembly is clear from the weapons held by the assail-
         ants. The injuries inflicted on the eyewitnesses i.e. Ningamma
         (PW1 ), Appaji (PW3), Sivappa (PW6) clearly described the role
         of the accused persons in surrounding and assailing the de- F
         ceased. It is submitted that the High Court has wrongly held
         that there were only two injuries on the head and that the rest of
         the injuries on the lower part of the body and limbs. It is not
         factually correct on a bare reading of the injury report. In fact,
         there were three injuries on the head. Additionally, the injuries 6
                                                                             G
.4   .   & 7 clearly show the force with which the injuries were inflicted,
         and in fact, injury No.7 shows that a hand was severed. The
         doctor's evidence also shows that there were multiple fractures
         of base of the occipital bone.
              5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand          H
    1176       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008) 8 S.C.R.


A shows that the acquittal of A4 because of non-explanation of              ~
                                                                                  'f

  injuries on him shows the falsity of the prosecution case. It was
  stated that the occurrence took place in the course of free fight
  and therefore the High Court's judgment does not warrant any
  interference. It was submitted High Court's judgment shows that
B Section 149 IPC was ruled out.
           6. The pivotal question is applicability of Section 149 IPC.
                                                                            "(
    Said provision has its foundation on constructive liability which
    is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the
    common object and not on common intention. Mere presence
c   in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless
    there was a common object and he was actuated by that com-
    mon object and that object is one of those set out in Section
     141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not
    proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help
D   of Section 149. The crucial question to determine is whether
    the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether
    the said persons entertained one or more of the common ob-
    jects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a
    general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved
E   against a person, who is alleged to be a member of unlawful
    assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of such an
    assembly. The only thing required is that he should have under-
    stood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit
    any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141. The
    word 'object' means the purpose or design and, in order to make
                                                                            ...
F
    it 'common', it must be shared by all. In other words, the object
    should be common to the persons, who compose the assem-
    bly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it.
    A common object may be formed by express agreement after
    mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may
G
    be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assem-
    bly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once              • •
    formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified
    or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression 'in pros-
    ecution of common object' as appearing in Section 149 have to
H
                      STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA                  1177
                      @ VARADE GOWDA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
      ~
 .            be strictly construed as equivalent to 'in order to attain the com-
              mon object'. H must be immediately connected with the com-
                                                                                    A
""'           mon object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be
              community of object and the object may exist only up to a par-
              ticular stage, and not thereafter. Members of an unlawful as-
              sembly may have community of object up to certain point be-           B
       )'
              yond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge,
  •           possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed
              in prosecution of their common object may vary not only ac-
 ~
              cording to the information at his command, but also according
              to the extent to which he shares the community of object, and as      c
              a consequence of this the effect of Section 149, IPC may be
              different on different members of the same assembly.

                     7. 'Common object' is different from a 'common intention'
              as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of
              minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same ob-        D
              ject in view and their number is five or more and that they act as
              an assembly to achieve that object. The 'common object' of an
              assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of
              the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the
              surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course         E
              of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the
              common object of the unlaV>Jful assembly is at a particular stage
              of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined,
      --+     keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by
              the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the          F
              scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all          ,,
              cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object,
              the same must be translated into action or be successful. Un-
              der the Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was not
              unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become
                                                                                    G
       ..;.   unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose,
              which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes
              into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful in-
              tent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement
              or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently
1                                                                                   H
    1178      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A become unlawful. In other words it can develop during the course           ~
                                                                                  .
  of incident at the spot eo instante.
          8. Section 149, IPC consists of two parts. The first part of
                                                                                  •
   the section means that the offence to be committed in prosecu-
   ti.on of the common object must be one which is committed with
B a view to accomplish the common object. In order that the of-
   fence may fall within the first part, the offence must be connected       '(

   immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly                    •
   of which the accused was member. Even ifthe offence commit-                    .,.
   ted .is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the as-
c sembly, it may yet fall under Section 141, if it can be held that
   the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be
   committed and this is what is required in the second part of the
   section. The purpose for which the members of the assembly
   set out or desired to achieve is the object. If the object desired
D by all the members is the same, the knowledge that is the ob-          "
   ject which is being pursued is shared by all the members and
  .they are in general agreement as to how it is to be achieved
   and that is now the common object of the assembly. An object
   is entertained in the human mind, and it being merely a mental
E attitude, no direct evidence can be available and, like intention,
   has generally to be gathered from the act which the person com-
   mils and the result therefrom. Though no hard and fast rule can
   be laid down under the circumstances from which the common
   object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from
   the  nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at the
                                                                         .
F
   time of or before or after the occurrence. The word 'knew' used
   in the second limb of the section implies something more than
   a possibility and it cannot be made to bear the sense of 'might
   have been known'. Positive knowledge is necessary. When an
   offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, it
G
   would generally be an offence which the members of the uni aw-        ~

   ful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of
   the common object. That, however, does not make the converse
   proposition true; there may be cases which would come within
   the second part but not within the first part. The distinction be-
H
                                                                                  I
                        STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA                 1179
                        @ VARADE GOWDA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
   "'   ~     tween the two parts of Section 149 cannot be ignored or oblit- A
              erated. In every case it would be an issue to be determined,
              whether the offence committed falls within the first part or it was
              an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be
              likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and
              falls within the second part. However, there may be cases which B
              would be within the first part but offences committed in pros-
        y     ecution of the common object would also be generally, if not
__,.,
              always, be within the second part, namely, offences which the
              parties knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of
              the common object. (See Chikkarange Gowda and others v.                c
              State of Mysore AIR 1956 SC 731). These aspects were also
              recently highlighted in Chandra & Ors. v. State of UP and Anr.
              [2004 (5) sec 141].
                    9. The injuries which were inflicted by the accused per-
        r     sons on the deceased as noted by the High Court.are as fol-            D
              lows:
                   I.     One contusion 4" X 4" on occipital region of head.
                   2.     Deep incised wound 2" X 1" x 2" right side of the
                          partial region of head.                                    E
                   3.     Incised wound 6 X 3" X 1" on the left side of the fore
                          head. Bone exposed on both bounds. Blood stains
                          seen on all the wounds.
        ~
                   4.     Contusion 3"x4" on right shoulder joint.                   F
                   5.     Deep incised wound 5"-x 2" x1" on middle 113rd of
                          right arm humerous exposed.
                   6.     Incised wound 4"x3" x2" on right axilla in horizontal
                          direction, pleura and lung exposed.                        G
        ...        7.     Deep incised cut injury on right wrist joint. Right hand
                          detached from the body at the level of wrist joint, only
                          skin flap is connecting, all the bones are exposed.
                   8.     Deep incised wound 2" X 2" on dorsum of the left
                                                                                     H
    1180         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 8 S.C.R.
                                                                                     ,~


                                                                              )...
A                hand bones exposed wound is in horizontal direction.
           9.    Incised wound 2" x 1" x 1" on left elbow joint, horizontal
                 direction, bones exposed, Radial artery and small
                 blood vessels cut open.                                             ,..
                                                                                      '
B          10. Deep incised wound upper 113rct of the left fore arm
               2"x2"1 just below the elbow joint, bones exposed.              '(


           11.   Deep incised wound 4" x 3" x 2" on middle, 113rct and               ..,
                 the left thigh, shaft of left femur exposed and blood
                 vessels cut open. Wound is in a horizontal direction.
c
           12. Deep incised wound 3" x 2" x 1" on the !eft knee
               joint, pattellar tendon are cut and bone exposed.
               Horizontal direction femeral artery and sophanus vain
               cut open.
D          13. Deep incised wound 3" x 2" x 2" right knee joint,
                                                                              ...
               pattella bone exposed 2" x 2" x 2" blood vesels are
               cut open, horizontal direction.
           14. Deep incised wound 6" x 3" just below the left knee
               joint. Head of the tibia exposed. Blood vessels cut
E
               open, horizontal direction.
           15. Incised wound 3" x 2" x 3" on lateral aspect of right
               thigh, shaft of femur exposed, blood vessels cut open,
               horizontal in direction, blood clots seen on the               \r

F              wounds.
           16. Deep incised wound 6" x 4" x 5" middle 1/3'd of right
               leg, tibia and febul also cut superficially, horizontal in
               direction, femoral artery sophenus vain cut open.

G          17. Left ankle joint and tendo achulus tender also cut                     #


               into pieces.                                                   ~


           18. Deep incised wound 3"x2"x1" on the left popleteal
               fosa, all the blood vessels cut open, horizontal in
               direction.
H
                    STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHIKKAHOTTAPPA                1181
••                  @ VARADE GOWDA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

                19. Incised wound 6"x4" on right leg on the medial aspect,       A
     -'.
                    all the muscles and blood vessels cut open, horizontal
                    in direction.

                20.   Incised wound 2"x 2" x1" on dorsum of right foot,
                      horizontal in direction.
                                                                                 B
                 10. As noted above, there were three injuries on the head
     )>
           and injury No.6 was of such nature that the plura and lung were
           exposed. Injury No.7 was a deep incised cut injury on right wrist
           joint. Right hand was detached from the body at the level of
           wrist joint. Further, rest of the injuries were not on the lower      c
           parts of the body as noted by the High Court. In fact the injury
           No.4 was an injury on the right shoulder joint and injury No.5
           was a deep incised wound S"x 2"x 1", on middle 1/3'd of right
           arm humerous exposed.
                   11. Most of the injuries were deep incised wounds of vary-    D
           ing sizes. Additionally, as noted above, the rnultiple fractures on
           the base of the occipital bone was noticed. The intention of the
           assailants as established by the evidence of the witnesses was
           the cause of death of the deceased and not to cause grievous
           injury.                                                               E


-~
                 12. Above being the position the High Court's judgment
           is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The respondents are
           convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with
           Section 149 IPC instead of Section 326 read with Section 149
           IPC as held by the High Court. The sentences imposed by the           F
           Trial Court stand restored. Respondents shall surrender to cus-
           tody forthwith to serve remainder of sentences.
                13. Appeal is allowed.
           S.K.S.                                          Appeal allowed.

      t