http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 325  of  1993

PETITIONER: KARU MARIK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/2001

BENCH: M.B. Shah & Shivaraj V. Patil

JUDGMENT:

Shivaraj V. Patil J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   This appeal is by the sole accused who was convicted for offence  under  Section  302 IPC and sentenced  to  rigorous imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge.  The High Court of Patna dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.  239/87(R) by the order  dated  15.9.1988 confirming the order of  conviction. Hence this appeal by special leave.

   In  short, the prosecution case is that on 14.8.1983  at about  6  A.M.   in the morning Savitri Devi,  wife  of  the informant  Thakuri  Pandit (PW-9) had gone to  ease  herself towards  north  of her house.  In the meantime, the  accused Karu  Marik being armed with chhura went there and assaulted with  chhura  on her chest.  She began crying and wanted  to run away but the accused caught hold of her hairs, threw her on the ground and started giving chhura blows on her abdomen and  back.   On raising alarm, her husband (PW-9)  and  Sita Dhobin  (PW-2), Mukesh (PW-1) and others came there.  Seeing them,  the accused fled away.  PW-9 found his wife in a pool of  blood lying unconscious.  He took her to Sadar hospital, Giridih,  and admitted her.  Enmity between the accused  and PW-9  was  said to be the motive.  Furdi bayan of  PW-9  was recorded in the hospital by S.I., R.N.Singh.  On that basis, F.I.R.   was  drawn  and a case under Section  307  IPC  was registered  against  the accused.  On 14.8.1983 itself,  her dying  declaration  was  recorded  by  S.N.Prasad,  Judicial Magistrate  First  Class,  Giridih.  Savitri  Devi  died  on 22.8.1983  in the hospital due to the injuries caused to her by  the accused.  Hence the offence was altered to one under Section 302 IPC.  The accused was tried for an offence under Section  302 IPC.  He pleaded not guilty and his defence was that  he  had  been falsely implicated in the  case  out  of enmity.

   The   prosecution  in  all   examined  10  witnesses  to establish  the  guilt  of the accused.   PW-1  was  declared hostile.   Accepting  the  evidence of PW-2  and  PW-9,  the eye-witnesses  coupled  with  the dying declaration  of  the deceased  and keeping in view the evidence of the doctor and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the  Investigating  Officer,  the trial court  held  accused guilty  and  convicted him for an offence under Section  302 IPC  and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for life.    On   appeal  by  the   accused,  the   High   Court re-appreciated  and scrutinized the evidence objectively and appropriately  and  did not see any infirmity in  the  order passed  by the trial court.  In that view, upheld the  order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.

   Having  perused  the  judgments of both the  courts  and looking  to  the  evidence placed on record, we are  of  the opinion  that the accused was rightly convicted.  It must be stated  here  itself  that this Court  on  27.9.1991  issued notice  confining  it  to  the   nature  of  offence   only. Accordingly, we heard learned counsel for the parties.

   The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased  died in the hospital after eight days of  assault; nature  of  injuries inflicted on the deceased;  the  weapon used  and in the absence of specific evidence of the  doctor as  to  whether  any  particular  injury  or  injuries  were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course, conviction of  the  appellant under Section 302 IPC is  not  justified. According  to  her, the appellant could be  convicted  under Section 324 IPC.  She pleaded that the appellant had neither intention  to  cause death of the deceased nor  such  bodily injury  which  he  knew was likely to cause death.   On  the other  hand,  the learned counsel for  the  respondent-State made  submissions  supporting  the  impugned  judgment.   He stated  that the trial court as well as the High Court, were right and justified in convicting the accused and sentencing him for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC based on the trustworthy  and unshaken evidence of eye-witnesses  coupled with  the dying declaration.  He added that the case of  the appellant  is  covered  by Clause II of  Section  300;   the doctor has clearly stated that the injuries inflicted on the deceased  were  sufficient to cause death;  looking  to  the nature  of the weapon used in the commission of offence  and the  parts of the body on which the injuries were inflicted, it  cannot be accepted that the appellant could be convicted for an offence under Section 324 IPC instead of 302 IPC.

   We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned  counsel  for the parties.  Dr.   Sibnarayan  Prasad (PW-8)  who  examined the deceased has stated that he  found the  following  injuries on the person of  deceased  Savitri Devi:-

(i)    One incised injury on the right side of chest 2x2x6 deep in the cavity.

(ii) One incised injury on right side of abdomen 3x2 deep in the cavity.

(iii)   One incised injury on back 3x2 deep into cavity.

   Further  after  operation, the following  injuries  were found:-

   (i) Two incised injuries in the transverse colon  each 1½x ½x deep into the cavity of the Lumen.

   (ii)  Four incised injuries on the large intestine  each ½x1/2x deep into the cavity of the Lumen

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

   He  has  deposed that all the injuries were grievous  in nature  and dangerous to life and that they could be  caused by  sharp  cutting  weapon such as dagger.  He  was  of  the opinion  that  death  of the deceased was due to  shock  and hemorrhage  and circulatory failure as a result of the above injuries.

   The  manner  of  causing  injuries, the  nature  of  the injuries  caused,  the  part  of the body  where  they  were inflicted,  the weapon of assault employed in the commission of  the  offence  and conduct of the  accused  are  relevant factors  in determining whether the offence committed is one of  murder  or  culpable homicide not amounting  to  murder. Even  a  most  illiterate and rustic person would  know  and realize  that  a savage blow with a short cutting weapon  on vital  part like chest and abdomen would cause bodily injury which  would result in death.  Ordinarily, a man is presumed to  intend  necessary consequences of his act.  This  Court, dealing with the second clause of Section 300 IPC in Rajwant Singh  vs.  State of Kerala ( AIR 1966 SC 1874), in para  10 has observed that:-

   The  second  clause  deals  with  acts  done  with  the intention  of  causing  such bodily injury as  the  offender knows  to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom harm  is  caused.   The mental attitude  here  is  two-fold. There  is first the intention to cause bodily harm and  next there  is  the subjective knowledge that death will  be  the likely consequence of the intended injury.

   Many  a times, the nature of the injury inflicted itself presents  a most valuable evidence of what the intention was but  that  is not the only way of gauging  intention.   Each case  must  be examined on its merits.  Intention being  the state  of mind of the offender, no direct evidence as a fact can  be produced.  It has to be gathered from the  available evidence  and  the surrounding circumstances in  considering whether  the  offence is covered by clause I of Section  300 IPC.   As far as clause II of the Section 300 is  concerned, it  is  enough if the accused had the intention  of  causing such  bodily  injury  as he knew to be likely to  cause  the death  of  the  person  to whom the harm  is  caused.   Such intention  may  be  inferred  not  merely  from  the  actual consequences of his act, but from the act itself also.

   In  the  case  on hand, having regard to the  nature  of wounds  inflicted, it must be deemed that his intention  was at  least to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.   The  broad  facts  as deposed  by  the  prosecution witnesses  accepted  by the trial court as well as the  High Court  clearly  show  that the appellant gave  a  blow  with chhura  on the chest of the deceased.  When she tried to run away,  he  caught hold of her hair, threw her on the  ground and  again assaulted with the chhura on the abdomen and  the back  of  the  deceased.  This is the manner  in  which  the injuries  were  inflicted.   The   injuries  inflicted  were grievous  in nature and dangerous to life which resulted  in causing  death of the deceased as deposed to by the  doctor. The  injuries were inflicted by the chhura, a sharp  cutting weapon;   even an illiterate and ignorant can be presumed to know  that an intense assault with such weapon on such vital parts  of  the body would cause death.  In  criminal  cases, intention  or the knowledge under which a person acts is  an important  consideration.   However, the intention  being  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

mental  make  up  or a state of mind of an offender,  it  is difficult to prove directly as a fact, but is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.  Hence, in the case  on  hand, it is not possible to accept the  submission that  the appellant could be convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

   In  this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the  contentions  urged  on behalf of the  appellant.   Thus finding no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed.