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 INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1934 OF 2009( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.5560/2007)
SHARAD ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE 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