'Injury Caused By Throwing A Piece Of Brick Not An Injury Likely To Cause Death': Allahabad HC Alters Murder Conviction To 'Grievous Hurt'

The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that for deducing the requisite intention or knowledge of the accused, it has to be seen whether he was aware of the consequences which shall follow or likely to follow as a direct consequence of his act.

“Where such an awareness of the direct consequences or the higher degree of probability cannot be attributed to the accused, the offence may not fall either under section 302 IPC or section 304 IPC, In our firm opinion, in such cases the offence may be covered under section 323, 324 and 325 IPC as the case may be,” the Court remarked.

Brief Background

The first informant filed a report stating that on June 29, 1981, his father (Babu Lal Sharma/deceased) was attacked while clearing a drain by accused persons (Durga Prasad and Bhawani Prasad), who hurled bricks at him after he protested against their use of foul language.

Witnesses corroborated the incident, noting that the victim would have been killed if not rescued. Initially, a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) under Section 323 IPC was filed, but after the victim succumbed to his injuries, the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC.

Both accused were charged, and following a trial, they were found guilty in 1989 by the trial court and they were convicted under section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Challenging the conviction, accused Durga Prasad moved the HC.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that in criminal cases involving offences under Section 302 or 304 IPC, crucial factors such as the nature and extent of injuries, their location, and the weapons involved are pivotal in determining the perpetrator's intent or knowledge.

In view of this, to understand the real nature of the act vis-à-vis its consequences, the Court referred to the medical report of the deceased and the testimony of the PWs, which it found to be trustworthy. to note that it was proved beyond doubt that the injury was caused by the throwing of brick pieces and not just by slipping down, as claimed by the defence.

The Court was also satisfied that the accused were rightly implicated in the matter and that there was no case of false implication.

Against this backdrop, the Court was left with only one question as to whether the prosecution had been able to prove the charge of section 302/34.

To answer the query, the Court referred to several landmark rulings of the Apex Court including the recent Judgement in the case of Anbazhagan vs State | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550 to find out whether the accused intended to cause such an injury which had been caused or whether he had the requisite knowledge that he will cause such an injury which may ultimately cause his death.

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court noted that the accused threw pieces of bricks (not wielded any weapon) which was enough to show that there had not been any pre-meditation and it was also not the case that they had come prepared with some object which may properly fall in category of a weapon.

The Court further noted that when a piece of brick is thrown, it is difficult to say where it will hit the body, if at all it hits unless somebody is so trained that he can exactly pinpoint the part of the body where he wanted to hit with the object.

“In this case, the impact of the blow by piece of brick caused fracture of skull bones. The deceased survived for seven days, thereafter he succumbed to this injury. In our view a single injury caused by throwing a piece of brick, which is not a hand held weapon, cannot be categorised as an injury likely to cause death. In our opinion the facts and circumstances exclude the proposition that the accused persons did the act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Further the act is not covered in the third part of section 299 I.P.C. that the act was done with a 'knowledge' that he is likely by such act to cause death,” the Court further observed.

However, the Court also noted that the facts of the case demonstrated that the accused person had an intention to cause hurt or that he had a 'knowledge' that he is likely to cause grievous hurt.

“In our opinion, in the totality of facts and circumstances and taking into account that there was a verbal altercation (not a fight) over an issue of opening the drain for release of water and there was no pre-meditation and that the accused obviously picked up a piece of brick and that he did not come prepared and armed with any weapon at all, in our opinion an offence under section 325 I.P.C. is proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused and not the offence under section 302 or 304 IPC”, the Court remarked.

Hence, the conviction of accused Durga Prasad was altered from 302 read with section 34 IPC to section 325 read with section 34 IPC and also reduced the sentence to a term of three years and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: S.H.Ibrahim, Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, G.R.Chhabra, Moti Chand Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party: V.K.Misra, G.A, O.P.Dwivedi

Case title - Durga Prasad vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 651 of 1989]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 85

Click here to read/download Judgment