Subscribe

Law Library › BNS s. 105 › Anbazhagan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police

Supreme Court

Anbazhagan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police

2023 INSC 632

Court
Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 2043 of 2023 [arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 9289 of 2019]
Decided
20 July 2023
Bench
B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala (judgment by J.B. Pardiwala, J.)
Citation
2023 INSC 632
Provisions
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 299, s. 300 and s. 304 Part I and Part II (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 100, s. 101 and s. 105); clause thirdly of s. 300 (now BNS s. 101(c))

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗

Headnote

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder · IPC s. 304 Part I and Part II (BNS s. 105) · Intention and knowledge · IPC s. 300 thirdly (BNS s. 101(c)) · Conviction altered from Part I to Part II

The case, in the Court's words

the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC should be further altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. [para 17]

Held

  1. Intention, which is a state of mind, can never be precisely proved by direct evidence as a fact; it can only be deduced or inferred from other facts which are proved. The intention may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events previous or subsequent to the incident or occurrence, on admission. Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case. There are various relevant circumstances from which the intention can be gathered. [para 21]
  2. The difference between clause (b) of Section 299 of the IPC and clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. [para 39]
  3. We say so because there is fine difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC. Under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. [para 46]
  4. (3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’. [para 60]
  5. To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. [para 60]
  6. (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient [...] in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. [para 60]

Result

In the aforesaid view of the matter and more particularly bearing the principles of law explained aforesaid, the present appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under [...] Section 304 Part I of the IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. For the altered conviction, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. [para 63]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Para 46 notes that observations in Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana (1981) and other decisions, which took recourse to Exception 4 to alter a conviction from s. 302 to s. 304 Part II, create some confusion; it does not overrule that judgment. Referred to as a recent judgment in N. Ramkumar v. State (2023).

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-105/05 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.