REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 996 OF 2004  

Indrasan       …. Appellant

Versus

State of U.P.       …. Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

 1. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  by  the  appellant  who  has  been  

convicted by the Sessions Court as also by the High Court under Section 302  

IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The deceased was one Jawahar who was murdered on 14.10.1979 at  

about  8.00  A.M.  in  Village  Marrie,  Police  Station  Nichlaul,  District  

Gorakhpur.   The prosecution story in brief is that in the said village there  

was a Government Gausadan (a campus with pasture land where cattle are  

brought  up and looked after)  spreading over an area of about 562 acres.  

Within  the  said  area  is  also  located  certain  residential  premises  for  the

employees of the Gausadan.   The grasses were also grown in Gausadan and  

contract of growing such grass in Gausadan was given by the Government  

through auction and one Harendra Singh who was a contractor was given the  

said contract.  Goverpal Harijan was one of the employees in the Gausadan  

and on account of his illness, his son Jawahar (deceased) was performing his  

duties in the Gausadan.

3. On 13.10.1979 at about 2.00 p.m. about 30-40 cattles including the  

buffaloes of Goverpal Harijan were grazing in the pasture land of Gausadan.  

Since they were eating the grasses for which there was a contract, a person  

on behalf of the contractor Harendra Singh came and collected all the cattles  

including  buffaloes  and  took  them  to  the  contractor  Harendra  Singh.  

Thereafter, Jawahar and other owners of the cattle went to Harendra Singh  

and requested him to release their cattle.   Harendra Singh permitted Jawahar  

to take away his buffalo and also released the cattle of the other persons.

4. On 14.10.1979 i.e. the next day in the morning time, Ram Prahlad,  

Sahdeo, Pratap, the appellant Indrasan and 2-3 persons were sitting in the  

verandah of Gausadan.   The appellant-Indrasan had lathi with him.   While  

they were so sitting in the verandah of the Gausadan, Jawahar happened to  

arrive there.   The appellant-Indrasan who was the employee of contractor  

2

Harendra Singh took up his lathi and suddenly rushed towards Jawahar and  

gave a lathi blow on his head as a result of which he sustained head injury  

and  fell  down.    As  a  consequence  of  the  said  lathi  blow on the  head,  

deceased-Jawahar succumbed to his injuries immediately thereafter.   Ram  

Prahlad went to the house of Goverpal and informed him about the fatal  

injuries caused to his son.   Goverpal came to Gausadan and found his son  

lying there dead.   He then went to the police station Nichlaul, where he  

lodged the written F.I.R. on the same day at 11.05 a.m.    The distance of the  

police station from the place of occurrence was six miles.   On information,  

a case was registered and investigation was entrusted to S.I. Vinod Kumar  

Yadav    (PW-7).   Post mortem examination was also carried on the body of  

the deceased-Jawahar.  In the said post mortem examination, one injury was  

found by the doctor on the head of the deceased which was of the following  

nature : -

“Lacerated wound on left parietal region 5 cm x 1 cm  x skull deep, 8 cm above left ear.”

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined all seven witnesses.  

Ram Prahlad (PW-1), Sahdeo (PW-2) and Ram Pratap (PW-3) were the eye  

witnesses of the occurrence.  Goverpal (PW-4), the father of the deceased  

was also examined.   The defense raised on behalf of the accused was one of  

3

denial and also of false implication due to enmity.   In examination under  

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the CrPC”),  

the  accused-appellant  stated  that  when  Harendra  Singh was  Thekedar  of  

grass  of  Gausadan,  he used to  look after  the  affairs  of  Gausadan  on his  

behalf.   Goverpal and other witnesses of the case and the villagers often  

used to graze their cattle in the grass of Gausadan and he used to hand over  

their cattle at the cattle pond.   Thus, people started having grudge against  

him resulting in his false implication in this case.   On completion of the  

trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence  

alleged against him and accordingly convicted him and passed an order of  

sentence of imprisonment for life.    

6. On  appeal,  the  High  Court  affirmed  the  order  of  conviction  and  

sentence as against which the present appeal has been filed on which we  

have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. The incident had taken place on 14.10.1979 at about 8 a.m. and there  

is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid fact that there was broad day light  

and the incident happened in the presence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.   The  

defense has not raised any dispute with regard to the aforesaid fact nor any  

suggestion was given to the aforesaid eye witnesses namely Ram Prahlad  

4

(PW-1), Sahdeo (PW-2) and Ram Pratap (PW-3) as against their statements  

that they were present at the time of incident and they had seen the entire  

incident through their own eyes.   The incident happened at about 8 a.m.  

when the deceased-Jawahar received the aforesaid fatal blow at the hand of  

the accused-appellant.   The deceased-Jawahar died at about 9 a.m. due to  

excessive  bleeding  as  is  established  from the  post  mortem report.    The  

distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is six miles.   The  

father  of  the  deceased-Jawahar  was  informed whereupon he  came to  the  

place of occurrence and on seeing his son dead, went to lodge an FIR at the  

Police  Station  Nichlaul  which  was  registered  at  11.05  a.m.    There  is,  

therefore, no delay in the lodging of the FIR.   There is also no possibility of  

any concoction of the incident as there was no scope of framing anybody  

unnecessarily  and  without  reason  within  that  short  span  of  time.    The  

incident  happened  in  broad  day  light  in  front  of  eye  witnesses  whose  

presence at the place of occurrence was quite natural.   There is also motive  

for the murder established in the case from the fact that a day before the  

occurrence  i.e.  on  13.10.1979,  the  cattles  of  some  persons  including  the  

buffaloes of the father of the deceased-Jawahar were taken away from the  

grazing  field  of  Gausadan  by  the  accused-appellant  and  subsequently,  

buffaloes of the father of the deceased-Jawahar were released.   Since the  

5

buffaloes  belonged  to  the  father  of  the  deceased-Jawahar  which  were  

impounded  and  taken  to  the  contractor-Harendra  but  was  released  

subsequently,  therefore,  there  was  some grudge  of  the  accused-appellant  

being an employee of the contractor-Harendra against the deceased-Jawahar  

and when on the next day, early in the morning he saw the deceased he got  

infuriated and without  any reason approached the deceased-Jawahar  after  

picking up his lathi and gave blow on the head with the help of his lathi and  

thereafter the accused-appellant ran away from the scene of occurrence.   So,  

the motive has also been established.

8. Counsel  appearing  for  the  accused-  appellant,  however,  submitted  

before us that there was no intention of causing death or causing any bodily  

injury  to  the  deceased  by the  accused-appellant.    It  was  also  submitted  

before  us  that  all  the  three  eye  witnesses  namely  Ram Prahlad  (PW-1),  

Sahdeo (PW-2) and Ram Pratap (PW-3) are interested witnesses and that  

other witnesses although present at the scene of occurrence, they were not  

examined by the prosecution.   Accordingly the conviction and sentence is  

required to be set aside.  It was next submitted by the counsel appearing for  

the accused-appellant that the weapon of alleged attack was not a dangerous  

weapon and was only a lathi and allegedly only one blow was given by the  

accused-appellant on the deceased which clearly establishes that it is neither  

6

a case of murder nor could be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to  

murder.  In support of aforesaid contention, he has relied upon few decisions  

of this Court namely  State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik [AIR 1987 SC  

1265],  State of U.P. v. Indrajeet [(2000) 7 SCC 249],  Joseph v. State of  

Kerala [AIR 1994 SC 34], Mohd. Shakeel  v. State of A.P. [(2007) 3 SCC  

119].

9. We have considered the aforesaid submissions as also the ratio of the  

aforesaid cases.  After carefully going through the same we, however, find  

that none of the aforesaid decisions could be said to be directly applicable in  

the present case as the facts are quite distinguishable.  So the same have no  

application in the facts and circumstances of the present case and we are  

required to consider the facts of the case independently.

10. In  Bhagaban Barik case (supra),  there  was an appeal  before this  

Court as against the order of acquittal.  In that case one blow was given by  

the accused with a lathi on the apprehension that the deceased was a thief.  

In  Indrajeet case (supra)  also, there was an appeal against acquittal and  

therefore it has no similarity with the facts and circumstances of the present  

case.  In Joseph case (supra) although the death was caused by one blow of  

lathi but there was clear evidence of quarrel between the parties preceding  

7

the  incident.   In  Mohd.  Shakeel  case (supra)  the  accused also received  

injuries during the course of the incident and taking notice of the said fact, it  

was  held  to  be  a  case  of  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to  murder.  

Clearly,  all  the  decisions  relied  upon  by  the  accused-appellant  are  quite  

distinguishable.   

11. We are required to examine the facts of the present case as it stand  

before us.    The submission that  there was no motive in committing the  

offence is clearly belied from the fact that the motive has been established in  

the present case.  The accused-appellant being an employee of the contractor  

definitely had a grudge against the deceased as the buffaloes belonging to  

the father of the deceased were impounded and taken to the contractor by the  

accused-appellant  on 13.10.1979 and the same were released on repeated  

requests  by  the  deceased.     Therefore,  there  was  a  clear  grudge  of  the  

employee of the contractor, accused-appellant against the deceased.   When  

on the very next day morning i.e. 14.10.1979, the accused-appellant saw the  

face of the deceased he simply picked up his lathi and with that gave one  

blow on the head of the deceased.   The said blow was so forceful that as a  

consequence of which the deceased died within an hour and before he could  

be taken to the hospital.   There is a direct nexus between the blow of lathi  

8

and death  of  the  deceased  which  is  immediately  caused  after  giving  the  

blow.

12. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that although it is a case  

of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but considering the nature of  

the injuries which was caused on a vital  part  of the body, we are of the  

considered view that there was intention on the part of the accused-appellant  

to cause death of the deceased.    

13. We, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant from Section 302,  

IPC to Section 304 Part  I IPC.   In our considered opinion, custody and  

sentence of 10 years would be appropriate and sufficient.    The accused-

appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a term of 10 years, if not already  

undergone, in terms of this order.   

14. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid  

extent.

  …..………………………J.         [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

   .…..........………………..J.                     [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

New Delhi, July 6, 2009

9