Subscribe

Law Library › BNS s. 105 › Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Supreme Court

Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

[2006] Supp. 4 SCR 633

Court
Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 945 of 2004
Decided
18 August 2006
Bench
G.P. Mathur, R.V. Raveendran (judgment by R.V. Raveendran, J.)
Citation
[2006] Supp. 4 SCR 633
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)

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗

Headnote

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder · IPC s. 304 Part I and Part II (BNS s. 105) · Murder or culpable homicide: factors to infer intention · Exception 4 to IPC s. 300 (BNS s. 101) · Single blow

The case, in the Court's words

The third contention relates to the question whether the offence is a murder punishable under Section 302, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II. [para 13]

Held

  1. We cannot accept the contention that whenever the death is on account of a single blow, the offence is one under Section 304 and not Section 302. [para 16]
  2. It would thus be seen that in all these cases, the accused landing a single blow was only one of the several circumstances which persuaded this Court to hold that the offence did not fall under Section 302 but fell under Section 304 Part I or Part II. The fact that the accused gave only one blow, by itself, would not mitigate the offence to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. [para 17]
  3. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. [...] It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under section 302. [para 18]
  4. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. [para 18]
  5. The intention to cause death or at all events intention of causing bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was made out. The circumstances to bring the case under Exception (4) to Section 300 do not exist. [para 19]

Result

We accordingly find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court convicting the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. [para 20]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

The factors listed in para 18 are quoted or applied in later Supreme Court judgments, including Stalin v. State (2020), State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat (2022), Anbazhagan v. State (2023), N. Ramkumar v. State (2023), Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala (2024) and Om Pal v. State of U.P. (2025). Note: the official copy numbers this passage para 18; reports that print it as para 29 follow the report's own numbering.

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-105/01 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.