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

Stalin v. State represented by the Inspector of Police

Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2020, decided 09.09.2020

Court

Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Case

Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2020 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3171 of 2019]

Decided

9 September 2020

Bench

Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah (judgment by M.R. Shah, J.)

Citation

Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2020, decided 09.09.2020

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); Exception 4 to s. 300 (now BNS s. 101, Exception 4)

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗

Headnote

Murder or culpable homicide · IPC s. 304 Part I (BNS s. 105) · Single injury · Exception 4 to IPC s. 300: sudden fight · Conviction altered from s. 302

The case, in the Court's words

At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 01.04.2019, this Court has issued a notice in the present appeal limited to the extent as to whether the conviction ought to have been under Section 304 Part II or Section 302 IPC. [para 3]

Held

1. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence. [para 7.2]
2. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, 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 and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, we are of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. [para 10]
3. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily [...] injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. [para 11]

Result

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is hereby modified from that of under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo 8 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/ and, in default, to further undergo one year R.I. [para 12]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

The passage in para 7.2 on single-injury cases is cited in later Supreme Court judgments, including State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat (2022) and Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala (2024).

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-105/04 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.