S. 300 IPC | Even Single Injury Resulting In Death Of Victim Can Amount To 'Murder': Gujarat High Court

The Court's decision came in response to an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused. The State had argued that the Trial Court had overlooked crucial pieces of evidence, such as the dying declarations, the accused's surrender with the weapon, and forensic reports confirming the presence of the deceased's blood on the knife.

The division bench comprising Justices AS Supehia and MR Mengdey while placing reliance on Anbazhagan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, 2023 SC 3660 stated, “While explaining the fine distinction between the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC, which refers to the expression "likely to cause death and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature", the Apex Court has held that even if a single injury is inflicted and if that particular injury is found objectively to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of clause Thirdly is attracted and it would be murder, unless one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC is attracted.”

“It is further held that where the prosecution proves that the accused had intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies,” the Court added.

In the prior order, the Court nullified the acquittal of Prakash Mithubhai Mulani (First Accused) in connection with murder charges and had observed that the earlier acquittal was marred by flaws, as the Trial Court had failed to consider pivotal evidence, such as the dying declarations, the accused's surrender accompanied by the weapon, and forensic reports substantiating the presence of the deceased's blood on the knife. Taking cognizance of these revelations, the Court annulled the acquittal and mandated a hearing to ascertain the appropriate conviction under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court in its prior order had also noted that the deceased succumbed to mortal injuries caused by the actions of the First Accused. It was further observed that these injuries, inflicted with a knife, specifically targeted the vital neck region of the victim. This resulted in the severing of a crucial blood vessel. The evidence presented indicated that the other co-accused played a role in restraining the victim, thereby facilitating the First Accused in intentionally and accurately directing the knife towards the neck with deadly intent.

The court underscored the differences between Section 300, which pertains to murder, and Section 299, which addresses culpable homicide. It emphasized the pivotal role of intent and knowledge, emphasizing that a solitary injury could qualify as murder if it is objectively lethal and the accused was conscious of the associated risk. Furthermore, the court clarified that even if the intent aligns with specific categories, the offense could be reclassified as culpable homicide if it satisfies any of the five exceptions specified in Section 300.

Moreover, the Court carefully examined the distinction between Part I and Part II of Section 304, underscoring the significance of interpreting "likely" as synonymous with "probably" in the context of causing death. The court differentiated the mens rea requirements across various clauses, highlighting that the intent to cause a potentially lethal injury transforms culpable homicide into murder. In instances involving deaths resulting from a single injury, the accused's intent is deduced from the surrounding circumstances.

The Court noted, “In the present case, the evidence suggests that the deceased had come at the place of incident in order to inquire about his sister being teased by the accused persons and the accused and the co-accused caught hold of him and the present accused inflicted a single blow of knife i.e. on the throat, cutting of his vital vein.”

“Thus, there was a clear intention on the part of the accused to inflict blow of knife on the neck of the decease. The evidence does not in any manner suggests that there was a sudden quarrel or sudden fight and the provocation was not voluntary. The accused has miserably failed to establish that there was sudden and grave provocation and he was deprived of power of self-control, and he caused the death of the deceased while was still in such state of mind,” the Court added.

The Court opined that the accused had taken undue advantage and had acted cruelly by inflicting a blow with such precision to cut the vein of the deceased after his movement was restricted by the co-accused.

The accused was already armed with the knife when the deceased had come to inquire about their act of teasing his sister, the Court further opined

Thus, the Court held, “In these circumstances the accused cannot be granted the benefit of either of Exception-I or Exception-IV to Section 300 of the IPC and the offence would not fall either under the provisions of Part-I of Section 304 or Part-II of Section 304 of the IPC.”

“The injury definitely was inflicted in such a manner which would attract the provisions of Clauses secondly and thirdly to Section 300 of the IPC. The accused can be attributed with the knowledge that if in such circumstances in which the deceased was made helpless and the injuries inflicted on his vital part that would cut his veins of the neck, he would definitely succumb to death. The intention of causing such injuries on the vital part of the body can be gathered from the act of the accused no.1 as the physical movement of the deceased was totally restricted and confined and hence, the accused no.1 had all the opportunity to inflict the injury on the vital part i.e. on the neck of the deceased cutting of the vein,” the Court added.

The court has handed down a life imprisonment sentence to the First Accused, along with a Rs. 5,000 fine and a default imprisonment of six months in case of non-payment. Acknowledging the extended time period involved, the court has granted the accused a 21-day window to surrender voluntarily before the relevant trial court. Consequently, the court has approved the appeal.

Appearance: Ms. Krina Calla, App For The Appellant(S) No. 1 Dr. Hardik K Raval(6366) For The Opponent(S)/Respondent(S) No. 1,2 Hcls Committee(4998) For The Opponent(S)/Respondent(S) No. 1,2 Non Bailable Warrant Not Received Back For The Opponent(S)/Respondent(S) No. 1

Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Prakash @ Piddu Mithubhai Mulani & 1 Other(S)

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 202

Case No.: R/Criminal Appeal No. 527 Of 1996

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement

Operative (order) portion of Judgement (For ref)