Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Sharad vs State Of Maharashtra

Supreme Court23 October 2009B.S. Chauhan · Tarun Chatterjee · K.G. Balakrishnan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a single injury to the chest is inflicted during an altercation with no evidence of premeditation, serious intention to kill, or prior enmity, and the victim's death results from that injury, the offence falls under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. (causing death by act endangering life or personal safety) rather than Section 302 I.P.C. (murder), notwithstanding that the injury was objectively capable of causing death and did in fact prove fatal.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1934 OF 2009( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.5560/2007)SHARAD ... APPELLANT(S)VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant herein was tried by the Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha for the offence punishable under Section 302 and was sentenced for undergoing life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court and the same was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant preferred this appeal and at the time of issuing notice we have indicated that the appeal is only confined to the question of nature of the offence.

Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was a young man aged about 20 years at the time of the incident; and there was no pre-mediation or serious intention to kill the deceased. Appellant had a quarrel with one Mukesh in which one Manoj Kashyap and one Sanjay Pande intervened and separated them each other. Thereafter the accused went from the place of incident and he met Mukesh later and it appears that there was a quarrel thereafter and the accused caused injury to Mukesh and he died. The injury was on the left side of the chest near sternum between 3 rd and 4th rib. There is also another injury which is superficial in nature.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is only one injury and that too pursuant to the altercation and there is no evidence to show that there was any previous enmity or not. The appellant's contention is that the offence committed does not amount to murder. Going by the injury sustained by the deceased and having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the offence committed by the appellant, at the most, comes under Part -I of Section 304 I.P.C. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and find him guilty under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. The appellant will undergo the remaining period of sentence.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

..................CJI

(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

...................J.

(TARUN CHATTERJEE)

...................J.

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI;

23RD OCTOBER, 2009

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free