SUBRAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA
- Citation
- 1993 INSC 255
- Decided
- 5 August 1993
- Disposal
- Modified
Holding
Subran's conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained as the injuries he caused were not sufficient to cause death and the requisite intent was not established.
Summary
The Supreme Court reviewed its earlier judgment in Subran and others v. State of Kerala after noting that paragraph 11 could be misinterpreted as a general statement of law. The case involved four appellants, including Subran, who were convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. On review, the Court held that Subran could not be held liable for murder because the injuries he inflicted were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and there was no intention to cause death attributable to him. The Court observed that the High Court had failed to consider the scope of clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, which deals with the intention to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death. Consequently, the conviction of Subran under Section 302 IPC was unsustainable, and the Court substituted the contested paragraph with a clarified version. The review petition was allowed, and the judgment was amended accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether Subran can be convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC given the nature and sufficiency of his injuries.
- Whether the High Court correctly applied clause (3) of Section 300 IPC in assessing intent and causation.
- Whether the earlier judgment's paragraph 11 constituted a general exposition of law or was limited to the facts of the case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300(3), s. 302
Subjects
Judgment
A SUBRAN AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF KERALA
AUGUST 5, 1993
B [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ., B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.]
Constitution of India, I950:- Article 137/Supreme Cowt Rules--Order
XI: Review-Judgment-Clarification of
C This Court by its judgment* decided Criminal Appeal No. 237 of
1993. On a review of the said judgment, the Court felt that observation
made in paragraph 11 thereof was capable of being misinterpreted.
Substituting paragraph 11 of the judgment, this Court
D HELD : The opinion expressed in paragraph 11 of the judgment
required to be confined to the peculiar facts of the case and was not general
exposition of law. [512-G-H; ;su-AJ
*Subran and others v. State of Kerala, (1993] 3 SCC 32.
E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition No.
1394 of 1993.
In
Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 1993.
F
.From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.91 of the Kerala High Court
in Cr!. Appeal No. 537/88.
Sudhir Gopi. Roy Abrahim and M.M. Kashyap for the Petitioners.
G M.T. George for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered :
On a review of the judgment, we find that the opinion expressed at
pages 10 to 12 (internal) corresponding to para 11 of the reported judg-.
H ment in 1993 (3) sec page - 32, is capable of being misinterpreted. The
512
SUBRAN v. STATEOFKERALA 513
opinion expressed therein was required to be confined to the peculiar facts A
of the case, but it tends to give an impression as if it is a general exposition
of law which it was not meant to be. We, therefore, substitute that para-
graph reading "Since appellant 1 Subran .............. committed by the four
appellants?" (page 10 to 12), by following:
"Appellant No. l, Subran, had rightly not been charged for the B
substantive offence of murder under Section 302 JPC. Subran,
appellant No. 1, was not attributed the fatal injury or identified as
the person who caused the fatal blow. According to the medical
evidence, none of the injuries allegedly caused by appellant-Subran
either individually or taken collectively with the other injuries cause C
by hin1, were. sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death of Suku. There is no material on the record to show that the
injuries inflicted by Subran, with the chopper, were inflicted with
the intention to cause death of Suku. Under these circumstances,
the cnnviclion of the first appellant, Subran, for an offence under
Section 302 I PC simpliciter was neither desirable nor appropriate. D
The Hlgh Court, it appears, failed to consider the scope of clause
(3) of Section 300 !PC in its proper perspective. In the facts of the
present case, the intention to cause murder of Suku deceased could
not be attributed to the said appellant as the medical evidence also
unmistakably shows that the injuries attributed to him were not E
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of tbe
deceased. Appellant No. l Subrnn, therefore, could not have been
convicted for the substantive offence under Section 302 !PC and
his conviction for the said offence cannot be sustained. 'fhat Suku
died as a result of cumulative effect of all the injuries inflicted on
him by all the four appellants stands established on the record. F
The question, therefore, arises what offence did the four appel-
1
!ants co1nn1it?'
The Judgn1ent is accordingly reviewed anc.1 the afore~aid substitution
in the judgment effected.
RP. Review Petition revic\ved.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.