- (1.) The question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the State of Kamataka is whether the offence committed by the respondent, the sole accused in the case, amounts to murder punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code or culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and whether the High court is right in holding that whenever there is only single injury the offence would be only culpable homicide though the medical evidence is to the effect that the same is necessarily fatal and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
(2.) The deceased Sugumaran, Public Witness 1 Pooswamy and other material witnesses were all workers in Kolar Gold Field and were residing in a place called Gorgaum. The house of the accused was about 26 feet from Public Witness 1's house. The deceased, who was son of Public Witness 1's sister, was living with his mother Public Witness 3, Muniyamma in another house. The accused developed illicit intimacy with Chudamani, wife of Public Witness 1. On 9/7/1984 at about II p. m. , Public Witness 1 saw the accused making signs to his wife Chudamani and seeing Public Witness 1, he ran away. On 13/7/1984 at about 3 p. m. , Public Witness 3 and the mother of the accused were quarrelling near the house of Public Witness 1 Public Witness 1 rushed to the house of Public Witness 3 and fetched her son, the deceased. The accused in the meanwhile, on hearing the quarrel, entered the scene with a knife MO 1 in his hand and on seeing the deceased the accused gave a knife blow on the left side of his chest as a result of which the deceased fell down and died instantaneously. Public Witness 1 chased the accused but could not catch him. Thereafter he went to the police station and gave a report. Ex. P-l. Public Witness 10 SI took up the investigation, held the inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, found one stab injury on the left side of the chest and opined that the death was a result of the said injury to the vital organs. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court accepted the prosecution case and held that a clear case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is made out and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal the High court confirmed the finding of the trial court namelythat it was the accused who caused the fatal injury but relying on the judgment of this court in Tholan v. State of T. N however, held that having regard to the genesis of the matter i. e. that there was no premeditation and since the accused inflicted only one blow with the dagger MO 1 which unfortunately landed on the chest, it cannot be said that "the accused intended to cause the death of the deceased". The High court also observed that on seeing the deceased the accused who had already a knife in his hand "gave only one blow to Sugumaran and unfortunately it landed on the chest of the deceased" and that "there are no circumstances placed before us to indicate that the accused wanted to finish off Sugumaran or intended to finish off Sugumaran. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is rather very difficult to infer that the accused inflicted the blow on the chest of the deceased with an intention to bring about his death". The High court further held that "therefore, according to the principle laid down in Tholan case we think that the offence, however, unfortunate it may be, would come down to Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code.
(3.) It is the above finding of the High court that is challenged in this appeal by the State. Both the courts below have held that on seeing the deceased, Sugumaran, the accused who was armed with a dagger MO 1, plunged it into the left side of the chest of the deceased as a result of which he died instantaneously. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, noted the following injury: "(A) a punctured wound 2" by 1/2" over the chest on the left side over the 2nd costal cartilage I " from the mid-sternum situated obliquely. It has clean cut edges and sharp angles at both the extremes. Edges are over cut. The edges of the wound clean not bruised. On probing the wound with a blunt probe it had freely entered the thoracic cavity. On dissection it is noticed that the wound had passed through the substance (T) of the sternum, 2nd costal cartilage anterior border of the lower lobe of the left lung and entered the chamber of the right ventricle 2" above the. . (not clear) of the heart. "both the courts below have clearly noted that the injury was a very serious one which brought about instant death. From the above description, it can be seen that the blow was aimed at the chest and the injury was inflicted with great force with a deadly weapon on the vital part. It entered the thoracic cavity, passed through the substance of the sternum, injured the lower lobe of the left lung and entered the chamber of the right ventricle. It is not a case where there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased or where they grappled with each other so that it cannot be definitely said that the accused aimed the blow at a particular part of the body and therefore intended to cause that particular injury which was objectively found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No doubt there may be scope to contend that there was no premeditation and therefore clause Istly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code namely that the accused intended to cause death, isnot attracted. But the important question is whether clause 3rdly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code is attracted.;