Holding

The conviction of appellant No.1 (Veeran) is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I/149, and the other accused are convicted under Sections 323/149, 147 and 148.

Summary

The case involved an altercation between two rival groups in which appellant No.1, Veeran, struck the deceased, Daddu, on the head with a gandasa, causing his death, while the other accused inflicted injuries on witnesses. The trial courts convicted all four surviving accused under Section 302/149 (murder) along with Sections 147, 148 and sentenced them to life imprisonment and one year respectively. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the death was pre‑meditated, whether there was a common intention to kill, and whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to constitute murder. Relying on the facts that the fight was sudden, provoked, lacked pre‑meditation, and that only Veeran delivered the fatal blow, the Court held that the case fell under Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 IPC. Consequently, Veeran’s conviction was converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I/149, while the other accused were convicted under Sections 323/149, 147 and 148. The appeal was partly allowed and the sentences already undergone were confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 302/149 (murder) can be sustained or should be converted to Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) based on the exceptions to Section 300.
Whether there was a common intention among the accused to cause the death of the deceased.
Whether the injuries inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 299, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304 Part I, s. 323

Subjects

murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderSection 302 IPCSection 304 IPCexceptions to Section 300common intentionpremeditationcriminal appeal

Judgment

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 300

A VEERAN & ORS.
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2011)
APRIL 13, 2011
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 300 exceptions 1, 4; s.304 Part I
1149, s. 3231149, s. 147 and 148 - Altercation between the
C parties, resulted in fatal blow to victim and injuries to
prosecution witnesses- Conviction uls. 3021149, 147 and 148
by courts below - On appeal held: Appellant No. 1 inflicted
fatal blow to victim - No specific overt acts attributed to the
remaining three accused except omnibus statement - Death
o caused by the accused was not pre-meditated as the incident
took place as a result of sudden and grave provocation -
Accused had no common intention to cause death of the
victim as only appellant No. 1 had hit the victim with Gandasa
on head, without there being any pre-meditation amongst
E themselves - Injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to have caused death - Some of the accused also
sustained injuries on their persons, which were caused by
complainant party - Thus, the instant case falls under the
Exceptions 1 and 4 to s. 300 - Appellant No. 1 held guilty for
F commission of offences u/ss. 304 Part I 1149, 147, 148 and
awarded sentence already undergone that is around 15 years
- Other accused held guilty for commission of offences ulss.
3231149, 147 and 148 and awarded sentences already
undergone which is more than 2 J1 years.

G The parties were in inimical terms. On the fateful day,
altercation between the parties, resulted in fatal blow to
'D' and injuries to prosecution witnesses who tried to
intervene when the accused were inflicting the injuries to

H 300
.VEERAN & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 301

the complainant party. After altercation between the A
parties, appellant No. 1, accused-0, R, L, A and G went
back to their house and came out armed with Gandasa,
Farsa and Lathis. Eight accused were charged and
prosecuted for commission of offences under Sections
147, 148, 302 or 302/149 and 325 IPC. Accused nos.6 and B
i wer.:i acquitted. The remaining six accused were
convicted for the said offences. They filed appeal before
the High Court. 'R' and 'L' expired during the pendency
of the appeal. As regards the remaining four accused, the
High Court convicted them under Sections 302/149, 147 c
and 148 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and one year
each respec:tively for the commission of the said
offences. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant
appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court D
MELD: 1.1 Appel:ant No. 1 had caused a fatal injury
to 'D' and other injuries were not grievous. It has neither
been disputed nor challenged that deceased 'D' had met
with homicidal death. [Para 10] [307-C-D) E
1.2 Perusal of the record shows that in the same
incident some of the accused had also sustained injuries
or. their persons, which were c~used by the complainant
t>arty. Thes3. injuries were proved by OW 4 and OW 5- ...
r
c!cctors by their injury reports. [Para 11] [307-E-F]

1.3 Evid3nce of all the three main eye witnesses, P\11/-
6, PW-7 and PVIJ-12 is consistent that appellant No. 1 had
ilit the deceased with Gandasa and the blow inflicted by
him had proved to be fatal. As regards other acc.used, G
t!1era appears to be omnibus statement that they all had
hit the deceased but details of the same have not been
•:;;iven specifically. No spec:fic overt acts have been
attributed to the other remaining three accused except
.H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A omnibus statement. Thus, from the analysis of the said
evidence, it is clear that it was appellant No. 1 who had
caused the fatal blow on the person of deceased. [Paras
12 and 13] [307-H; 308-A-E-F]

1.4 A close look at the evidence of the main witness-
8
PW 12 makes it clear that the accused were not already
armed with lethal weapons to cause the death of 'D'. As
per his own admission, when they reached in front of the
house of 'R', wives of accused started abusing them,
C meaning thereby, at that time none of the accused were
there. [Para 14] [308-G]

1.6 Under the scheme of IPC, "culpable homicide" is
the genus and "murder" its species wherein all "murder"
is "culpable homicide" but all "culpable homicide" is not
D "murder". [Para 16] [309-E]
1.7 In the instant case, it can be inferred that the fight
between both the parties was not pre-meditated as the
incident took place due to heated arguments and
E altercations between them and could be termed as a
result of sudden and grave provocation; that there was
no intention to cause death of the deceased; that they
had no common intention to cause death of the deceased
as only appellant No. 1 had hit 'D' deceased with
F Gandasa on head, without there being any pre-meditation
amongst themselves; and that they were not aware that
the injuries caused by them were sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause death. [Para 17] [310-C-F]

Thangaiya vs. State of T.N. (2005) 9 SCC 650 - referred
G
to.

1.8 From the evidence of doctors examined by
prosecution, it is clear thc.t P'4V-6, PW-7 and PW-12 had

H
VEERAN & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 303

also sustained injuries, which were caused by other A
accused. It appears that the death caused by the accused
was not pre-meditated, accused had no common
intention to cause death of deceased, the injuries were
not suffici.ent in the ordinary course of natyre to have
caused his death, thus, the instant case .falls under the. B
Exception's 1 and 4 to Section
. 300 u~c·. Thus,
' - ' . appeilant
No. 1 is held guilty for commission of offences under
.
Section 304 Part I /149 and ,under Section 147, 148 IPC
and awarded the sente~ce ~lready undergone that is
around 15 years whereas.others are held.guilty· for C
commissi9n of offences under Section 323/149, 147 and.
148 l.P.C. and awarded the sentences already undergone
which is more than 2112years.:[Paras19; 20 and 21] [312-.
C-Gh, ··., r··
D
Case Law Reference:
; • I 1·

(2005) s sec 650 Referred to · Para 18" '
' " ' ...i ~~ i ' < • • ' • .:;~ • >... \ ·. r '. • •

CRIMINAL.Af='.PELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 923 of 2011 .. E
.:., \ • ' ' 1_ • • ' •. •

·From the Judgment &,Order dated 1~.7.2009 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. Appeal No. 472
of 1994.

· R.P. Gupta, Parmanand Gaur for the "Appellants. F
• . ~ . l . ' j.~ } : ; . • -1

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent.
-· < ' ' - •

. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·
. , '

DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. leave granted. ·G
1
_ • _. \.I l\ '. £-.. ~ . ?.1

2. The perennial question whether accused deserve to be
convicted
. - under Section
. - 302 of the·. Indian . Penal
. Code,. ~

(hereinafter shall be referred.as 'l.P.C.') as held by theJrial court
and upheld by the High Court or whether the conviction should H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A be converted under Section 304 of the l.P.C, has once again
cropped up for consideration before us, in this Appeal.

3. In the instant case, eight accused were charged and
prosecuted for commission of offences under Section 147, 148,
302 or 302/149 and 325 of the IPC. After trial, giving benefit
8
of doubt, Suresh and Badelal - accused nos.6 & 7 respectively,
were acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara,
Narsingpur in Sessions Case No. 21/93 vide its Judgment and
Order dated 21.4.1994. Six convicted accused preferred
C Criminal Appeal No. 472of1994 in the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur. During the pendency of the appeal,
Accused No. 3 - Rewaram and Accused No. 4 - Lakhan Lal
died. Thus, appeal in respect of these two accused stood
abated. However, as regards the remaining four accused, the
High Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the
D Trial Court. Now, in this appeal, it is prayed before us to
consider, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
whether, the four surviving convicted Appellants Veeran, Onkar,
Ganesh and Ashok deserve to be convicted under Section 302/
149, 147 and 148 of the IPC, who have been awarded life
E imprisonment and one year each respectively for the
commission of the aforesaid offences or it deserves to be
converted under Section 304 of the IPC.

4. Prosecution story in nutshell is as under :
F It is said, PW-6 Mayabai, real sister of deceased Daddu
had become pregnant on account of accused Onkar and
Ganesh. Panchayat was called to resolve the dispute.
Panchayat passed a resolution to outcaste deceased Daddu,
PW-6 Mayabai and their family members. On account of this,
G they were in inimical terms. On 4.11.1992, Radhelal, uncle of
deceased Daddu, was not in his house. Deceased Daddu, and
Narmada @ Narbadi were required to sleep at Radhelal's
house and hence were proceeding towards his house at about
8:00 p.m for this purpose. Narmada @ Narbadi was brother-
H in-law of deceased Daddu. When they reached the house of
VEERAN & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 305
[DEEPAK VERMA, J]
Radhelal, wives of accused Veeran, Onkar and Rewaram A
started abusing them saying that these persons had lost their
reputation because of the misconduct committed by PW·6 -
Mayabai, sister of deceased Daddu, after which Daddu
(deceased) asked the ladies not to abuse them. At that time
accused Veeran, Onkar and Rewaram came out from their B
house but went back to their respective houses. However,
before leaving they challenged deceased Daddu, to come out
of the house. Daddu came out of his house and at that point of
time, accused Lakhan, Ashok and Ganesh also came to the
spot armed with Gandasa, Farsa and Lathis. etc. All of them C
told Daddu that he was crossing all limits and he should behave
in proper and orderly manner. After some altercation, they
started beating Daddu (deceased) with the weapons they were.
carrying.
5. It is said that Veeran caused injuries on the head of D
Daddu. On account of injuries sustained by Daddu, he fell
down. Even though, Narmada @ Narbadi raised protest but they
did not stop. Mayabai - PW6, Rambai and Trivenibai - PW7
(sisters of deceased Daddu), Shiv Prasad and Kailash - PW9,
(cousin of deceased) of the same village came to intervene but E
the accused persons did not stop. After inflicting injuries on
Daddu, thinking him to be dead, accused left the spot.
Narmada@ Narbadi·and Mayabai also sustained injuries as
they were trying to intervene. Daddu ~a~Jhen taken in a bullock
cart to Police Station, Gotetoriya, Narsinghpur by Mayabai and F
others. FIR was lodged by Mayabai on 4.11.92 at 23.30 Hrs.
naming all the eight accused in the same and giving details of
the injuries caused by each one of them, with the weapons they
were carrying. Thereafter, Daddu was taken to Civil Hospital,
Gadarwara but before any medical help could be provided to G
him, he was declared 'brought dead' by the Doctors attending
on him.
6. After completion of investigation, the accused were
prosecuted for commission of the aforesaid offences by the
Trial Court. As mentioned hereinabove, accused Suresh and
- ~ '! ' ~
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A Badelal were acquitted, whereas Rewaram and Lakhan
expired during the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court. Thus, now only four accused are before us. In Criminal
Appeal, High Court confirmed the judgment and order of
conviction against all the four Appellants and found them guilty
B for commission of offences under Section 302/149, 147 and
148 of the IPC. Hence, this appeal.

7. We have, accordingly, heard Shri R.P.Gupta, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Parmanand Gaur, for the
C Appellants, Smt. Vibha Datta Makhija for Respondent-state and
perused the record.

8. At the outset, learned counsel for the Appellants
contended that looking to the nature of the injuries sustained
by deceased, both the courts below, committed grave error in
D finding the Appellants guilty for commission· of offences under
Section 302/149, 147 and 148 of the IPC. It was further
submitted that Appellant No. 1 - Veeran, the so called main
accused has already.undergone a sentence of more than 15
years, whereas others are in jail for over 2 % years. It has also
E been submitted that some of the accused had also sustained
injuries, which have not been explained properly by the
prosecut1on. The incident had occurred at the spur of the
moment and there was neither common object nor common
intention in the mind of accused to commit murder of deceased
F Daddu. According to them, thus, the offence deserves to be
converted under Section 304 of the IPC as far as Veeran is
concerned, more so when he has already undergone more than
15 years in Jail and others deserve to be convicted for lesser
offences as no specific overt act could be attributed to them.

G 9. On the other hand, Smt. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned
Counsel for Respondent State, vehemently opposed and
contended that looking to the nature of injuries inflicted on vital
parts of the body of the deceased, with deadly weapons, no
scope of doubt remains that they had common intention to kill
H the deceased. In any event, the accused were aware of the fact
VEERAN & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 307
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
that the nature of injuries caused by them would be sufficient A
in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was, therefore,
contended that no case for showing any leniency was made out
and the concurrent findings of the two courts below need not
be disturbed. Consequently, this Appeal deserves to be
dismissed. B

. 10. Post Mortem Report shows that deceased Daddu had
sustained in all, eight injuries, out of the which four were incised
wounds and others were either contusion or abrasion. As per
this report, deceased had died of s·hock and Haemorrhage.
Injury No. 8 was sufficient to cause death. This Post Mortem C
Report has been duly proved by autopsy surgeon. It has neither
been disputed nor challenged before us that deceased Daddu
had met with homicidal death. Now, the question that arises for
consideration in this Appeal is whether, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, conviction of the Appellants under D
Section 302/149 of the IPC can still be upheld or it deserves
to be converted under Section 304 of the IPC.

11. Perusa.1 of the record shows that in the same incident·
some of the accused i.e. Suresh, Badelal, Rewaram and E
Ganesh had also sustained injuries on their persons, which
were caused by the complainant party. These injuries have
been proved by D.W.4 - Dr. O.P. Nayak & D.W. 5 - Dr. Patel,
vide their injury reports. It. is also clear from the record that
accused did not try to cause any pre-determined injuries on the
F
person of deceased, which could have proved fatal. There does
not appear to be any premeditation on the part of accused to
commit the crime. It occurred all of a sudden and at the spur of
the moment. There is nothing to suggest that the accused were
already aware that the deceased and his brother-in-law were G "'
to come at the spot where the crime was committed.

12. Evidence of all the three main eye witnesses, PW-6
Mayabai, PW-7 Trivenibai and PW-12 Narmada@ Narbadi is
consistent that Veeran had hit the deceased with Gandasa and
the blow inflicted by him had proved to be fatal. As regards H
•
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A other accused, there appears to be omnibus statement that
they all had hit the deceased but details of the same have not
been given specifically. No specific overt acts have been
attributed to the other remaining 3 accused except omnibus
statement as mentioned hereinabove.
8 13. P'N-6 Mayabai, has deposed that on reaching the
spot, she had seen eight persons, namely, Veeran, Rewaram,
Ganesh, Lakhan, Onkar, Ashok, Badelal, Suresh, beating her
brother Daddu. Veeran was having Gandasa, Rewaram, Onkar
and Ashok were armed with Farsas, while Ganesh and Lakhan
C had Lathis. Similar is the statement of PW-7 Trivenibai, who
has deposed that Mayabai, Rambai, Kailash had reached the
spot where Veeran, Ganesh, Rewaram, Lakhan, Ashok, Suresh
and Badelal were beating her brother Daddu. Veeran was
having Gandasa, Ashok - Farsa, Onkar - Rewaram - Farsa,
D Badelal - Ganesh and Suresh had Lathis. PW-12 Narmada@
Narbadi was in fact with Daddu, when they were going to the
house of Radhelal to sleep at night. According to him, Veeran
was having Gandasa and he had hit with it on the head of
Daddu. His evidence appears to be convincing and natural as
E he was accompanying the deceased Daddu, when the incident
had taken place. Recovery of Gandasa was made from the
possession of Veeran. Thus, from the analysis of the aforesaid
evidence, it is clear that it was Veeran, who had caused the
fatal blow on the person of deceased.
F
14. A close look at the evidence of the said main witness
makes it clear that the accused were not already armed with
lethal weapons to cause the death of Daddu. As per his own
admission, when they reached in front of the house of Radhelal,
G wives of accused started abusing them, meaning thereby, at
that time none of the accused were there. The contention of the
learned counsel for the State that the accused had common
intention to cause death of Daddu thus stands repelled.

15. Looking to the facts and feature of the case and also
H keeping in mind that it was Accused No. 1 - Veeran who had
VEERAN & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 309
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
caused a fatal injury to deceased Daddu and other injuries were A
not grievous, it would be in the fitness of things to convert the
conviction of the Appellant No. 1 under Section 304 Part I of
IPC and to award him sentence already undergone, which is
about 15 years.
B
16. To understand the legal complexities of the matter, we
would consider the import of Sec 299 and 300 of IPC,
reproduced hereinbelow:

Section 299 of IPC reads as follows:,
c
"299. Culpable homicide.- Whoever causes death by doing
an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act
to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide." o
In the instant case, there has been death of Oaddu caused
on account of injuries by aforementioned acc~sed. The two
courts below have convicted accused for the offence of
murder under Section 302 of IPC. In plethora of cases, this E
Court has held that under the scheme of IPC, "culpable
homicide" is the genus and "murder" its species wherein
all "murder" is "culpable homicide" but all "culpable
homicide" is not "murder".

Exception 1 to 5 to Section 300 of IPC indicate the F
circumstances where "culpable homicide" is not "murder".
Exception 1 and 4 which are relevant for the present
appeal read as follows :

"Section 300. Murder : ........... .
G
Exception 1.-When culpable homicide is not murder:~·
1
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst
deprived of the power of self-control by grave!'and sudden
provocation, causes the death of the person wti'i:> gave.the
provocation or causes the death of any otherpersorrby' H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 5 S.C.R.

A mistake or accident.

Exception 2. - ........... .

Exception 3. - ........... .

B Exception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel
or unusual manner.
c
Exception 5. - ............ "

17. In the instant case, it can be inferred that :

(i) The fight between both the parties was not
D premeditated as the incident took place due to
heated arguments and altercations between them
and could be termed as a result of sudden and
grave provocation.

(ii) There was no intention to cause death of the
E
deceased.

(iii) They had no common intention to cause death of
the deceased as only Veeran had hit Daddu
(Deceased) with Gandasa on head, without there
F being any premeditation amongst themselves.

(iv) They were not aware that the injuries caused by
them were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
G 18. Also, fine distinction between Section 299 and Section
300 of IPC has been eloquently and beautifully carved out by
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat in a recent judgment, after
considering all the previous judgments of this Court. We may
quote profitably the following paras of the judgment reported
H in (2005) 9 SCC 650 titled Thangaiya Vs. State of T.N. :
VEERAN & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 311
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.]

"17. These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become A
locus classicus. The test laid down by Virsa Singh v. State
of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 465:1958 SCR 1495 for the
applicability of clause "thirdly'' is now ingrained in our legal
system and has become part of the rule of law. Under
clause "thirdly" of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is B
murder, if botti the following conditions are satisfied: i.e.
(a) that the act which causes death is done with the
intention of causing death or is done with the intention of
causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to
be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to c
cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention
to inflict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary
course of nature, was sufficient to cause death viz. that the
injury found to be present was the injury that was intended
to be inflicted. D
18. Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh
case even if the intention of the accused was limited to
the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the
intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. E
Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out
this point.
19. Clause {c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section
300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act
causing death. It is not necessary for the purpose of this F
case to dilate much on the distinction between these
corresponding clauses. It will be sufficient to say that
clause (4) of Section 300 would be applicable where the
knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death
of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a G
particular person or persons - being caused from his
imminently dangerous act, approximates to a practical
certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must
be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been
committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 5 S.C.R.

A the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
20. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron
imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate
the task of the court. But sometimes the facts are so
intertwined and the second and the third stages so
B telescoped into each other that it may not be convenient
to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the
second and third stages".
19. From the evidence of doctors examined by
c prosecution, it is clear that PW-6 Mayabai, PW-7 Trivenibai,
and PW-12 Narmada@ Narbadi had also sustained injuries,
which were caused by other accused. Thus, Appellant No. 1
Veeran is held guilty for commission of offences under Section
304 Part 1/149 of the IPC and others are held guilty under
Section 323/149 of the IPC together with Section 147, 148 of
0
the IPC. All of them are awarded the sentences already
undergone by them i.e. Veeran about 15 years and others more
than 2 'Y2 years.
20. From the upshot of the aforesaid discussions, it
E appears that the death caused by the accused was not
premeditated, accused had no common intention to cause
death of deceased, the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to have caused his death, hence the instant
case falls under the Exceptions 1 and 4 io Section 300 of IPC.
F 21. In the light of the foregoing discussion, appeal is
allowed in part. Appellant No. 1, Veeran is held guilty for
commission of offences under Section 304 Part I /149 and
under Section 147, 148 of the IPC and awarded the sentence
already undergone whereas others are held guilty for
G commission of offences under Section 323/149, 147 & 148 of
the l.P.C. and awarded the sentences already undergone. The
Appellants be thus, released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.

H N.J. Appeal partly allowed.