-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
Supreme court observed that, the High Court has proceeded on the wrong footing that the injuries caused to the deceased were on non-vital parts of the body and therefore, there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased and the accused took deceased to a doctor also shows that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased.
PW1 and deceased Balveer Singh visited Hanumangarh on October 5, 2005. They boarded a train in the evening to return to their village of Sherekan. While walking from the railway station to their house, they noticed the accused nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 standing near the railway crossing. On the way, a Tata Sumo vehicle with the accused no.4 inside was parked, and they began beating up the deceased and PW1. PW1 begged the accused to release him. Balveer Singh had died by that point. The accused removed Balveer Singh's body from the vehicle and smashed the face of the body with nearby bricks so that it could not be identified. The body of the deceased was then thrown into the canal, and the clothes were also thrown into the canal by attaching bricks to it.
The respondent was convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC. The accused filed an appeal with the High Court of Rajasthan after being dissatisfied with the Sessions Court's judgement and order. The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was reduced to the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC by the impugned judgement and order dated July 18, 2016. Appellant dissatisfied file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the deceased's injuries were to non-vital parts of the body and thus there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased, and the fact that the accused took the deceased to a doctor also shows that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased.
Supreme Court further observed that if it is done with the intent of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death." Once the prosecution establishes the existence of the three ingredients that comprise "thirdly" in Section 300, it is irrelevant whether the accused intended to cause death.
Supreme Court held that the High Court has committed a gross error by applying Section 304 Part II of IPC, and restore the conviction for murder.
D.D- November 30, 2021
VINOD KUMAR versus AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS.
