THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KANHAIYA LAL
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 569, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
569
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
KANHAIYA LAL
(Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 2019)
APRIL 10, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 304 Part I – Murder – Victim
attacked by accused on his head by an axe, succumbed to his
injuries – Conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence
punishable u/s. 302 by the trial court, however, altered by the High
Court to s. 304 Part I on the ground that the victim died of a single
injury caused on his head by the accused by an axe; that there was
no repeated injury; and that the victim and the accused had an
altercation and there was no intention for the accused – Interference
with – Held: Reasoning given by the High Court while converting
the conviction from s. 302 to s. 304 Part I, manifestly perverse and
totally contrary to the evidence on record – Doctor who conducted
post mortem stated that the said head injury was sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature – Single blow on the vital
part of the body like head and that too by deadly weapon-axe and
used with force proved to be fatal, and was sufficient to hold that it
was a case of murder u/s. 300 – Merely because the altercation
might have taken place much earlier and not immediately prior to
and/or at the time of commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred
that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause
death of the deceased – Thus, the High Court committed erred in
altering the conviction from s.
302 to s. 304 Part I – Judgment of
the High Court set aside and that of the trial court restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The main reason given by the High Court while
converting the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section
304 Part I of the IPC is that it was a case of a single blow, the
deceased had died because of single injury caused on his head by
the accused by an axe. The said can hardly be a ground to convert
the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
   [2019] 5 S.C.R. 569
569
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the said decisions to
the facts of the case on hand and the reasoning given by the High
Court while converting the conviction from section 302 to Section
304 Part I, the reasons stated in the impugned Judgment and
Order, the judgment of the High Court is manifestly perverse
and is totally contrary to the evidence on record. As per PW15, a
fracture of 4 cm length was found in the parietal and occipital. He
also stated that the said head injury was sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the accused used a deadly
weapon-axe on the vital part of the body-head, which proved to
be fatal.  [Para 6.2, 7] [575-E; 576-G-H; 577-B-C]
Arun Raj v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 457 : [2010]
7 SCR 1; Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar v. State of
Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 604 ; State of Rajasthan v. Leela
Ram alias Leela Dhar 2019 (1) SCALE 544 – relied
on.
Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra
(2012) 11 SCC 592 – referred to.
1.2 Another reason given by the High Court is that there
was no repeated injury, can hardly be a ground to convert the
conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part I IPC. A single
blow on the vital part of the body like head and that too by deadly
weapon-axe and used with force which proved to be fatal, was
sufficient to hold that it was a case of murder within the definition
of Section 300 IPC. [Para 8][577-C-D]
1.3 Another reason given by
the High Court is that in the
morning on the day of the incident, there was an altercation
between the accused and the deceased and so it can be said that
in the circumstances of the case there was no intention to cause
death on the part of the accused but the fact by which the death
was caused appears to hold down that the intention of causing
such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The said is contrary
to the evidence on record. It is not a case on behalf of the accused
that there was an altercation between the accused and the
deceased at the time of commission of the offence. The altercation,
if any, had taken place, in the morning and much earlier than the
time of incident. Merely because the altercation might have taken
place much earlier and not immediately prior to and/or at the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
time of commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred that there
was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the
deceased. Thus, the judgment of the High Court is manifestly
perverse and is totally contrary to the evidence on record. The
High Court committed a grave error in altering the conviction
from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and therefore
the interference of this Court is warranted to obviate a complete
failure of interest of justice. The impugned judgment of the High
Court is set aside and that of the trial court convicting the accused
under Section 302 IPC is restored. [Para 8.1, 9][577-E-H;
578-A-C]
Case Law Reference
(2012) 11 SCC 592
referred to
Para 4.4
 (2011) 10 SCC 604
relied on
Para 7
[2010] 7 SCR 1
relied on
Para 7
2019 (1) SCALE 544
relied on
Para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 645 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 303
of 2009.
Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Jayant Bhatia and
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rishabh Sancheti, Ms. Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari and K. Paari
Vendhan, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This  appeal  arises  from  the  Judgement  and  Order  of  a
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for   Rajasthan
dated 23.05.2014 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.303 of 2009. The High
Court,  while  allowing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  respondent, convicted
him  under  Section  304  Part  I  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,instead  of
Section  302  of  the  IPC.  The  High  Court  sentenced  the respondent
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KANHAIYA LAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
to  undergo  8  years  RI  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.1000/- and  in
default  of  payment  of  fine,  to  suffer  one  month  simple imprisonment.
The  State  preferred  this  appeal  against  the  said decision.
3. A   First   Information   Report   was   lodged   by   one   Dalip
Kumar at Police Station   Nimbaheda   being   FIR   No.32/2008.   It was
alleged  that  on  26.01.2008,  when  PW-5  –  Ms.  Kailashi  was
returning  from  the  farm,  in  her  presence,  Kanhaiya  Lal  attacked
Raju  (deceased)  on  his  head  by  an  axe.  As  per  PW-5,  Raju  fell
down   and,   on   her   cries,   other   persons   reached   the   spot.   The
accused  ran  away.  That  Raju  succumbed  to  the  injuries.  After
concluding   the   investigation,   the   Investigating   Officer   filed   the
charge-sheet   against   the   accused   for   the   offence   punishable
under   Section   302   of   the   IPC.   That   the   accused   pleaded   not
guilty  and  therefore  he  came  to  be  tried  by  the  learned  Sessions
Court  for  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  302  of  the  IPC.
That    the    prosecution    examined    as    many    as    17    witnesses
including  PW1  Dr.  K.  Asif,  who  issued  the  Injury  Report  (Exhibit
P1);  PW5  Ms.  Kailashi;  PW15  Dr.  Anees  Ahmed,  who
performedthe  Post-Mortem  Report  of  the  deceased.  Through  the
witnesses who   were   examined,   the   prosecution
brought   on
record   the documentary  evidence  including  the  Injury  Report  (Exhibit
P1)  as well  as  the  Post-Mortem  Report.  That  thereafter,  the
statement  of accused  under  Section  313  of  the  CrPC  was  recorded,
in  which accused     stated     that     he     has     been     falsely
implicated.     No evidence/witness  was  produced  by  the  accused  in
defence.  That thereafter,   on   appreciation   of   evidence,   the
learned   Sessions Court  held  the  accused  guilty  for  the  offence
punishable  under Section   302   of   the   IPC   and   sentenced   him   to
undergo   life imprisonment  with  fine  of  Rs.1000/-  and  in  default  to
pay  the fine, to undergo further one month SI.
3.1 Feeling  aggrieved  and  dissatisfied  with  the  Judgment and
Order   of   conviction   and   sentence   passed   by   the   learned
Sessions Court, the respondent-original accused preferred Appeal before
the  High  Court  being  Criminal  Appeal  No.303  of  2009.  By the
impugned  Judgment  and  Order,  the  High  Court  has  partly allowed
the  appeal  preferred  by  the  accused  and  has  convicted the   accused
under   Section   304   Part   I   of   the   IPC   instead   of Section  302
of  the  IPC.  Hence,  the  present  appeal  by  the  Stateagainst  the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
impugned  Judgment  and  Order  passed  by  the  High Court,  converting
the  conviction  of  the  accused  to  Section  304 Part  I  of  the  IPC  in
place  of  conviction  under  Section  302  of  the IPC.
4. Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant- the
State   of   Rajasthan   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the facts
and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially  erred  in
altering  the  conviction  of  the  accused  from Section 302 of the IPC to
Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
4.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   the   learned   Counsel
appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant-State  that  the  main  reason
given   by   the   High   Court   while   converting   the   conviction   from
Section  302  of  the  IPC  to  Section  304  Part  I  is  that  the  deceased
died   because   of   a   single   injury   caused   on   his   head.   It   is
submitted    that    however    the    High    Court    has    not,    at    all,
considered  the  fact  that  the  accused  gave  the  blow  by  an  axe,  a
deadly  weapon  and  that  too  on  the  vital  part  of  the  body,  i.e. head.
It  is  submitted  that  as  per  the  medical  evidence,  the  head injury
was  sufficient  to  cause  death  in  ordinary  course  of  nature. It  is
submitted  that,  therefore,  the  High  Court  is  not  justified  inconverting
the  conviction  from  Section  302  of  the  IPC  to  Section 304 Part I of
the IPC.
4.2 It
is  further  submitted  by  learned  Counsel  appearing on
behalf  of  the  appellant-State  that  another  reason  given  by  the High
Court  is  that  there  was  an  altercation  between  the  accused and  the
deceased  and  so  it  can  be  said  that  in  the  circumstances of  the
case  there  was  no  intention  to  cause  death  on  the  part  of the
accused-appellant.   It   is   submitted   that   however   the   High Court
has  failed  to  consider  and  appreciate/reappreciate  the  fact that  at
the  time  when  the  incident  had  taken  place,  there  was  no
altercation  at  all  and  the  altercation  was  before  few  hours  and not
at the time when the incident had taken place.
4.3 Learned  Counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant-
State  has  submitted  that  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the case
and  the  injuries  sustained  by  the  deceased,  it  was  a  clear case of
murder within the definition of Section 300  of the IPC and as  such  the
learned  Sessions  Court  rightly  convicted  the  accused for  the  offence
under  Section  302  of  the  IPC.  It  is  submitted  by the  learned
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KANHAIYA LAL
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
Counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant-State that the Judgment
of the High Court is manifestly perverse and istotally   contrary   to   the
evidence   on   record   and   therefore   the interference of this Court is
warranted.
4.4 Making  the  above  submissions  and  relying  upon  the
decisions  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Arun  Raj  v.  Union  of  India
(2010)   6   SCC   457;   Ashokkumar   Magabhai   Vankar   v.   State
of Gujarat  (2011)  10  SCC  604;  Vijay  Ramkrishan  Gaikwad  v.
State of  Maharashtra  (2012)  11  SCC  592,  and  a  recent  decision
of  this Court  in  the  case  of  State  of  Rajasthan  v.  Leela  Ram
alias  Leela Dhar  dated  13.12.2018  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.1441  of
2013,  it  is prayed  to  allow  the  present  appeal  and  set  aside  the
impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court and to restore
the Judgment  and  Order  of  conviction  and  sentence  passed  by  the
learned Sessions Court.
5. Learned      Counsel      appearing      on      behalf      of      the
respondent–original  accused,  while  opposing  the  present  appeal, has
vehemently  submitted  that  while  converting  the  conviction  of the
accused  from  Section  302  of  the  IPC  to  Section  304  Part  I  of the
IPC,   the   High   Court   has   given   cogent   reasons   and   has
considered  the  relevant  circumstances  and  thereafter  has  come to
the conclusion that the
intention of the accused cannot be saidto  be  to
cause  death  of  the  deceased.  It  is  submitted  that  the High    Court
has    considered    the    relevant    circumstances    and thereafter  has
converted  the  conviction  from  Section  302  of  the IPC  to  Section
304  Part  I  of  the  IPC  and  therefore  the  same  is  not required to be
interfered with by this Court.
6. Heard     the     learned     Advocates     appearing     for     the
respective parties at length.
6.1 We  have  considered  in  detail  the  Judgment  and  Order
passed   by   learned   Sessions   Court   as   well   as   the   impugned
Judgment   and   Order   passed   by   the   High   Court.   The   learned
Sessions   Court   convicted   the   accused   for   the   offence   under
Section  302  of  the  IPC.  However,  in  an  appeal  preferred  by  the
accused,   the   High   Court   has   converted   the   conviction   from
Section  302  of  the  IPC  to  Section  304  Part  I  of  the  IPC.  While
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
doing  so,  the  High  Court  has  assigned  the  following  reasons  in
paragraph 15:
“15.  In  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  is  proved
beyond   doubt   that   Rajmal   had   died   because   of
single    injury    caused    on    his    head    by    accused-
appellant   Kanhaiya   Lal   by   an   axe.   It   is   also   an
admitted  fact  that  there  was  no  repeated  injury  and
further    more,    it    is    also    on    record    that    in    the
morning   of   the   day   of   the   incident,   there   was
analtercation  between  the  accused  and  the  deceased
and  so  it  can  be  said  that  in  the  circumstances  of the
case,  that  there  was  no  intention  to  cause  death on  the
part  of  the  accused-appellant  but  the  act  by which  the
death  was  caused  appears  to  have  done with  the
intention  of  causing  such  bodily  injury  as was   likely   to
cause   death   and   so   his   conviction deserves  to  be
altered  from  Section  302  of  Indian Penal   Code   to
Section   304   Part   I   of   Indian   Penal Code.”
6.2 Now  so far  as  the  main  reason given by  the  High  Court
while  converting  the  conviction  from  Section  302  of  the  IPC  to
Section  304  Part  I  of  the  IPC  i.e.  it  was  a  case  of  a  single  blow
is concerned,  it  is  required  to  be  noted  that  the  deceased  had  died
because of single injury caused on his head by the  accused by an axe.
The   aforesaid   can   hardly
be   a   ground   to   convert   the conviction
from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
6.3 In  the  case  of   Arun  Raj  (Supra)  this  Court  observed and
held that there is no fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted,
Section  302  would  not  be  attracted.  It  is  observed  and held   by
this   Court   in   the   aforesaid   decision   that   nature   of weapon  used
and  vital  part  of  the  body  where  blow  was  struck, prove  beyond
reasonable  doubt  the  intention  of  the  accused  tocause  death  of
deceased.  It  is  further  observed  and  held  by  this Court   that   once
these   ingredients   are   proved,   it   is   irrelevant whether there was
a single blow struck or multiple blows.
6.4 In  the  case  of  Ashokkumar  Magabhai  Vankar  (Supra),
the  death  was  caused  by  single  blow  on  head  of  the  deceased with
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KANHAIYA LAL
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
a  wooden  pestle.  It  was  found  that  the  accused  used  pestle with
such force that head of the deceased was broken into pieces. This  Court
considered  whether  the  case  would  fall  under  Section 302  or
Exception  4  of  Section  300  of  the  IPC.  It  is  held  by  this Court  that
the  injury  sustained  by  deceased,  not  only  exhibits intention    of
accused    in    causing    death    of    victim,    but    also knowledge of
accused in that regard. It is further observed by this Court   that   such
attack   could   be   none   other   than   for   causing death  of  victim.  It
is  observed  that  any  reasonable  person,  with any   stretch   of
imagination   can   come   to   conclusion   that   such injury  on   such   a
vital   part  of   the   body,  with  such   a   weapon, would cause death.
6.5 A   similar   view   is   taken   by   this   Court   in   the   recent
decision  in  the  case  of  Leela  Ram  alias  Leela  Dhar  (Supra)  and
after considering catena of decisions of this Court on the issue onhand
i.e.  in  case  of  a  single  blow,  whether  a  case  falls  under section 302
or section 304 Part I or section 304 Part II, this Court reversed  the
judgment  of  the  High  Court  (in  that  case  also  the judgment
impugned   was   from   the   Rajasthan   High   Court)   and convicted
the  accused  for  the  offence  under  section  302  of  the IPC. In the
same decision,  this
Court  also considered Exception 4 of   Section   300
of   the   IPC   and   observed   in   paragraph   21   as under :
“21.   Under   Exception   4,   culpable   homicide   is   not
murder     if     the     stipulations     contained     in     that
provision  are  fulfilled.  They  are  :  (i)  that  the  act  was
committed  without  premeditation;  (ii)  that  there  was a
sudden  fight;  (iii)  the  act  must  be  in  the  heat  of
passion upon a sudden quarrel; and (iv) the offender should
not  have  taken  undue  advantage  or  acted  in a cruel or
unusual manner. “
7. Applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the
aforesaid   decisions   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand   and   the
reasoning given by the High Court while converting the conviction from
section  302     to  Section  304  Part  I,  the  reasons  stated  in paragraph
15   of   the   impugned   Judgement   and   Order,   we   are firmly   of
the   view   that   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   is manifestly
perverse   and   is   totally   contrary   to   the   evidence   onrecord.  As
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
577
per  the  deposition  of  PW1  Dr.  K  Asif,  the  deceased sustained
following injuries :
“1.Incised  wound  7  cm x  0.5  cm  skin deep  and bone
visible on the middle part of the head.
2.  abrasion  1  cm  x  0.5  cm  on  the  middle  portion  of
right leg.”
As  per  PW15  Dr.  Anees  Ahmed,  a  fracture  of  4  cm  length
was  found  in  the  parietal  and  occipital.  He  also  stated  that  the said
head  injury  was  sufficient  to  cause  death  in  the  ordinary course  of
nature.  Thus,  the  accused  used  a  deadly  weapon-axe on the vital
part of the body-head, which proved to be fatal.
8. Another  reason  given  by  the  High  Court  is  that  there was
no   repeated   injury.   Aforesaid   can   hardly   be   a   ground   to
convert  the  conviction  from  section  302  to  section  304  Part  I  of
the  IPC.  A  single  blow  on  the  vital  part  of  the  body  like  head  and
that  too  by  deadly  weapon-axe  and  used  with  force  which  proved
to  be  fatal,  was  sufficient  to  hold  that  it  was  a  case  of  murder
within the definition of Section 300 of the IPC.
8.1 Another  reason  given  by  the  High  Court  is  that  in  the
morning   on   the   day   of   the   incident,   there   was   an   altercation
between  the  accused  and  the  deceased  and  so  it  can  be  said
thatin  the  circumstances  of  the  case  there  was  no  intention  to
cause death  on  the  part  of  the  accused  but  the  fact  by  which  the
death was  caused  appears  to  hold  down  that  the  intention  of
causing such  bodily  injury  as  was  likely  to  cause  death.  The
aforesaid  is contrary  to  the  evidence  on  record.  It  is  required  to  be
noted  that it   is   not   a   case   on   behalf   of   the   accused   that   there
was   an altercation  between  the  accused  and  the  deceased  at  the
time  of commission   of   the   offence.   The   altercation,   if   any,   had
taken place,  in  the  morning  and  much  earlier  than  the  time  of
incident. Merely   because   the   altercation   might   have   taken   place
much earlier   and   not   immediately   prior   to   and/or   at   the   time
of commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred that there was no
intention   on   the   part   of   the   accused   to   cause   death   of   the
deceased.  Therefore,  on  the  aforesaid  ground,  the  High  Court  has
committed   a   grave   error   in   converting/altering   the   conviction
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KANHAIYA LAL
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
from  Section  302  of  the  IPC  to  Section  304  Part  I  of  the  IPC.
Thus,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  judgement  of  the  High  Court
is manifestly   perverse   and   is   totally   contrary   to   the   evidence
on record.  The  High  Court  has  committed  a  grave  error  in  altering
the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to section 304 Part I ofthe
IPC  and  therefore  the  interference  of  this  Court  is  warranted to
obviate a complete failure of interest of justice.
9. In  view  of  the  above  and  for  the  reasons  stated  above, we
allow  this  appeal,  Set  aside  the  impugned  Judgement  of  the High
Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the   accused
under   Section   302   of   the   IPC.   The   respondent- accused  is
sentenced  to  suffer  imprisonment  for  life  as  per  the Judgement  of
the  learned  Trial  Court.  If  the  accused  is  already released   after
undergoing   the   sentence   as   per   the   impugned Judgment  and
Order  passed  by  the  High  Court,  the  respondent- accused shall
surrender forthwith to serve his sentence.
10. A  copy  of  this  order  shall  be  forwarded  by  the  Registry
to  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  of  the  area  concerned  to  seek
compliance.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.