Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by five accused against the High Court's judgment convicting them for various offences arising from an incident on 03.03.1998. The prosecution case was that the deceased Saroja disapproved of her son's marriage to the sister of A1, leading to a dispute. A Panchayat was called but could not be held. Later, while the deceased and her family were standing outside, A1, A2, A3, and others attacked the deceased with weapons. A1 struck her on the head with a sickle, A2 hit her neck with an iron pipe, and others assaulted her with wooden staffs. The deceased died from injuries. The trial court convicted A1 and A2 under Section 302 IPC, A3 under Section 324 IPC, and A5 and A9 under Section 323 IPC. The High Court upheld these convictions. The Supreme Court considered whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applied, arguing that the accused came armed, indicating premeditation, and thus the exception did not apply. The Court held that A1's act of hitting the deceased on the head with a sickle causing skull fracture fell under clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC, as it was imminently dangerous. However, since the High Court held that Sections 34 and 149 IPC were not applicable, each accused was liable only for their own acts. A2's blow caused only abrasions, not fatal, so his conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC and sentence reduced to period already undergone. The appeals of A1, A3, A5, and A9 were dismissed. The Court ordered A1 to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence, and A2's bail bond was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Accused came armed with weapons to a Panchayat, indicating premeditation - Held that Exception 4 not applicable as the occurrence was not sudden or without premeditation (Paras 6-7). B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - Clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC - A1 hit deceased on head with sickle causing fracture - Held that A1 knew the act was imminently dangerous and likely to cause death, thus murder (Para 8). C) Criminal Law - Individual Liability - Sections 34, 149 IPC not applicable - Each accused liable only for own acts - A2's blow with iron pipe caused only abrasions, not fatal - Held A2 guilty under Section 324 IPC, not 302 IPC (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable for A1 and A2, and whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies
Final Decision
Appeal of A1, A3, A5, and A9 dismissed; appeal of A2 allowed, conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 324 IPC, sentence reduced to period already undergone. A1's bail cancelled, A2's bail discharged.
Law Points
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable when accused come armed
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 149 IPC
- Individual liability for own acts
