Shankar Alias Kallu
v.
State Of Madhya Pradesh
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1972 | 28-02-1979
Fazal Ali, J.
1. In this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. So far as the prosecution case is concerned, we are satisfied that the case has been fully proved by the prosecution. The main witnesses relied upon are PW 2 and 4. We have perused the evidence of these witnesses and we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence.
2. The only point which merits consideration is, as to what is that exact nature of the offence committed by the appellant. On the prosecution case itself, the occurrence took place suddenly without any premeditation while the deceased along with the accused and others had just finished their meals. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not think that the appellant had any intention of causing the particular injury that he caused to the deceased with a dagger on a vital part of the body Viz. neck. There can however be no doubt that he must be deemed to have the knowledge that death may be caused by his act.
3. In the circumstances, therefore, the case against the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of Section 304(II) IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant from one under Section 302 to that of under Section 304 (II) and reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to seven years R.I.
4. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.
1. In this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. So far as the prosecution case is concerned, we are satisfied that the case has been fully proved by the prosecution. The main witnesses relied upon are PW 2 and 4. We have perused the evidence of these witnesses and we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence.
2. The only point which merits consideration is, as to what is that exact nature of the offence committed by the appellant. On the prosecution case itself, the occurrence took place suddenly without any premeditation while the deceased along with the accused and others had just finished their meals. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not think that the appellant had any intention of causing the particular injury that he caused to the deceased with a dagger on a vital part of the body Viz. neck. There can however be no doubt that he must be deemed to have the knowledge that death may be caused by his act.
3. In the circumstances, therefore, the case against the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of Section 304(II) IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant from one under Section 302 to that of under Section 304 (II) and reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to seven years R.I.
4. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE SYED M. FAZAL ALI
HON'BLE JUSTICE O. CHINNAPPA REDDY
Eq Citation
1979 CRILJ 1135
(1979) 3 SCC 318
(1979) SCC CRI 632
AIR 1979 SC 1532
1979 (11) UJ 491
LQ/SC/1979/166
HeadNote
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302/304-II — Conviction under S. 302 altered to S. 304-II — Conviction under S. 302 IPC altered to S. 304-II IPC and sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 7 yrs RI
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
