Single Injury To Vital Part Of Body Is Sufficient For Murder: Orissa HC Confirms Conviction Of Couple For Murder Of Relative

While dismissing an appeal preferred by a couple against their conviction for murder of one of their relatives, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,

"The victim though received a single injury but it was on a vital part. If it had been an injury on any other part of victim's body with no imminent danger of death, things would have been different, even if she had succumbed to it."

Facts of the Case:

An FIR was lodged on 12^th May 1999 alleging therein that the Appellant No. 1 assaulted the deceased by means of a knife along with Appellant No. 2. The informant is the husband of the victim. After FIR was lodged, a case was registered under Section(s) 302, 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC. On completion of investigation, the Appellants were charge-sheeted under Section(s) 302 and 323 read with 34 IPC. After the case was committed, the learned Court below framed the charges and conducted trial.

The prosecution in support of its case adduced evidence. However, no evidence was led by the Appellants. The statements of the Appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the trial court passed the order of conviction and sentence dated 13th March, 2001, considering the evidences produced. The learned Court below directed the Appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month each.

Contentions:

Ms. Deepali Mohapatra and Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra, advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants, contended that the court below ought to have disbelieved the evidence with regard to recovery of weapon of offence. It was claimed that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence on the seizure of knife and also to prove that the weapon of offence actually belonged to the Appellants.

Further, they stressed that the chemical examination report did not disclose presence of the blood stains of the deceased on their wearing apparels and also knife. Thus, simply relying on the evidence of spot witnesses, the learned court below should not have held the Appellants responsible for the incident when both sides were not in good terms.

Court's Observations and Decision:

The Court recorded that the Appellant No. 1 assaulted the deceased by means of a knife causing an injury on her neck which can be deemed to be such an act with full knowledge that would in all probability cause her death. From the evidence on record, it appeared that there was no provocation from the side of the deceased, who had a quarrel with Appellant No. 2. It was also revealed that Appellant No. 2 prevented the victim from leaving the spot and then, Appellant No. 1 assaulted her with the knife. The Court observed, in other words, the evidence shows that Appellant No. 2 facilitated the assault by catching hold of or intercepting the deceased, who was preparing to leave and thus, in a way assisted Appellant No. 1 to execute it.

Again, it is a case of absence of any provocation from the side of the victim but the Appellants took undue advantage of the situation and acted in a most unusual or cruel manner, albeit without premeditation. Apart from that, the Court found that none of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC can be applied in the case at hand.

The Court observed that without any doubt, the Appellants have committed an act of culpable homicide. The Court considered whether such culpable homicide amounts to an offence of murder. It observed, there is a subtle distinction between culpable homicide and murder as defined in Section 299 and 300 IPC respectively. As it is understood, the real distinction between culpable homicide and murder is only the difference in 'degrees of intention and knowledge'. A greater degree of intention and knowledge would fall in the category of murder and lesser would result in culpable homicide not amounting the murder.

It relied upon the Reg v. Govinda, (1877) ILR 1 Bombay 342, wherein it was held that whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the risk to human life; if death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide and if it is most probable result, it is murder. Further it clarified therein that the offence is culpable homicide, if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death; but it is murder, if such injury is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.

It consequently observed that if it had been an injury on any other part of victim's body with no imminent danger of death, things would have been different. However, on a detailed examination of the material evidence, it came to the conclusion that the Appellants are guilty of having committed an offence of murder and not culpable homicide of a lesser degree. Thus, it confirmed the decision rendered by the Court below.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Nath & Anr. v. State of Odisha

Case No.: CRA No. 103 of 2001

Judgment Dated: 21 April 2022

Coram: Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik

Judgment Authored By: Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate & Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J. Katikia, Additional Government Advocate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 53