Injuries insufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, Life Imprisonment set aside: Supreme Court of India
Liability under the offence of murder does not arise if the injuries inflicted upon the deceased were insufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of a person was decided in the case of Mihir Gope Etc. vs. State of Jharkhand [Criminal Appeal No. 22-23 of 2021] presided over by J. N.V. Ramana, J. Surya Kant and J. Aniruddha Bose. In this case, a quarrel arose between the parties over an earthen hut constructed over a land in dispute which resulted in the deaths of two. The First Information Report was registered on the same day in Pindrajora police station, Bokaro district, Jharkhand. Further the Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bokaro held the two appellants guilty for the murder of the deceased against which a special leave petition was filed by them. The third accused was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board on his plea of Juvenility and the fourth was let off as no allegations of assault were made against her. A medical examination revealed that the injuries caused by the appellants were simple form of lacerated wounds and were insufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. The CT scan of one of the deceased did not show any intracerebral hemmorhage or fracture to reason the injuries inflicted upon him to be the cause of his death. The honorable bench contended, “Considering the weapons of assault the appellants were meant to have has used in inflicting such injuries, and the nature of injuries they caused on the deceased, we do not think the two appellants had the intention or knowledge that their acts could have had caused their deaths. We also do not find any evidence of commission of offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. None of the eyewitnesses has stated in course of their examination that the appellants had wrongfully confined them. In our opinion, however, there is sufficient evidence against the appellants of voluntarily causing hurt by the instruments we have referred to. We have discussed the evidence based on which we come to this conclusion. We hold both the appellants guilty of committing offence under section 324 of the Code.”
 …RESPONDENT received in consequence of assaults on them on 20th appellants are two sons of one Manohar Gope with with the members of the deceased victims’ family is specifically related to the construction of a hut. The No.8973 of 2019) and Prabhat Gope No.8974 of 2019). They have been held guilty by the Trial Court for committing offences under Sections 341 307 325 and offence under Section 302 of the Code simple imprisonment for a month in relation to offence under Section 341 of the Code rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for offence under Section 325 of the Code and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence under Section 307 of the Code. The sentences had been directed to run concurrently by the Trial Court Ram Mahto on 20th August 2005 being the date of occurrence of the offence. In the depositions as Jatu Mahto has been referred to as Jadu Jethu Jattu and Indu by different witnesses. We shall however refer shall also be referring to the accused persons as also only. Kasi Ram himself was injured in the assault. He family particularly on Anil Jatu and Kasi Ram was attributed to Manohar in the fardbeyan and the prosecution witnesses have broadly corroborated the the four convicted accused persons sustained the accused persons Usha Deviwas set aside The fardbeyan was recorded at Bokaro General place of occurrence at Obra Mouza from their place of brother Premchand Prabhat and Kailash were supplied with a tangi Devi. Before the assault started Kasi Ram wanted Anil with towel then Manohar assaulted him on head with rod and he became injured”. The name “Indu” as sequence of events narrated by the other eye­witnesses being PW­2 PW­3 PW­4 PW­5 PW­7 and PW­11 this Prosecution evidence was accepted by the Trial Court on the aspect of description of assault by the accused persons which resulted in death of Anil and Jatu and also resulted in injuries to Kasi Ram Premchand and Puranchand. On his plea of juvenility the case of Kailash was separated and sent to the assault by her. Anil had passed away on 20th August 2005 itself at BGH whereas Jatu passed away on the next day i.e. 21st August 2005. The injured persons were initially taken to Chas General Hospital and after described as the referral hospital in course of the In the First Information Report Manohar and his three sons Mihir Prabhat and Kailash were named as accused persons. After investigation charge­sheet was accused persons. Records pertaining to Kailash were sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. All four were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the Trial The prosecution examined altogether sixteen witnesses. Seven among them being Puna DeviPuranchand Vijay Kumar Mukteshwar PW­5) DakshineshwarPremchandand leading to shock and cardio respiratory failure. On were found in between pia and dura mater i.e. the and vertebral column). External injury of Anil as per injuries were “fracture of occipital bone with swelling Premchand and found his injuries to be simple in nature caused by hard blunt found in case of Anil a stitched wound on occipital parietal area 4” long. In case of Jatu Dr. Rajak has deposed that he found “1 stitched wound on occipital to hard blunt object by the PW­14. In case of Premchand he referred to the following injuries in his Dr. Narendra Kumar Das was the head of the grievous. Injury of Premchand according to him was simple in nature and possibly caused by a hard and blunt object. So far as injuries of Kasi Ram are concerned Dr. Shishir Kumar Singh Munda and Gulichand Mahto seizure witness of blood­soaked soil. At this stage appeals as prosecution has relied upon other direct the wife of Prabhat Gope. She was presented as a the stick from Manohar’s house. In her deposition however she has stated that the paper on which she had Gope and Shambhu Gope. Both of them deposed as by them that the informant and his brothers had likes of which we have already referred to. When they tried to pull down the tiled hut the defence witnesses The appellants sought to buttress this defence by and PW­15 all medical professionals. They stated in accidental injuries caused by the informant’s side 10. The question in the given context which falls for victims but for that very reason we cannot disbelieve unintentionally inflicted by falling tiles when the members of the victims’ family were dismantling the structure does not inspire confidence. The prosecution witnesses have been consistent and uniform in their version that it was Manohar and his sons who had evidence of the seven prosecution witnesses who have deposed as eyewitnesses being Puna Deviwife of Kasi Ram Puranchand an injured witness Vijay KumarMukteshwarDakshineshwarPremchandand Kasi injured Anil. The seven witnesses are also uniform in saying that Manohar dealt the blows to these three Anil and Jatu to Manohar. At the same time she has whose conviction was set aside by the High Court had supplied an axe to Mihir sawal to Prabhat and a gupti Prabhat had assaulted Anil Jatu Premchand Kailash assaulted Anil with an axe on the back of his head. He also deposed that all the four accused had assaulted Anil Premchand and Jatu. To Mihir he attributed assault by an axe. Vijay Kumar has Jatu Premchand and Puranchand. He also referred to strikes by Manohar on Anil Kasi Ram and Jatu Anil and Jatu with the axe on their heads whereas Puranchand. Dakshineshwar’s narration of the rod. The depositions of the prosecution witnesses thus are not uniform on the aspect of the role of these two appellants in assaulting Anil and Jatu. Usha Devi against whom allegation was of supply of weapons to Mihir Prabhat and Kailash has been acquitted by the But from the depositions of the four medical practitioners injuries of Anil Jatu Kasi Ram and we find from his deposition that he had a fractured bone with lacerated wound. Dr. Shishir Kumar Singh Munda had examined Premchand and found Ram and found two injuries lacerated wound on right day of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m. in the casualty Jatu he found a 3” long stitched wound on the occipital area. As regards injuries of Premchand he observed stated that his CT scan showed multiple intracerebral haemorrhage in the left temporoparietal region with fracture of the left parietal bone. As regards probable cause of the injuries PW­9 stated that injury to Anil substance. Dr. Narendra Kumar Das on the other hand interpreted Jatu’s CT scan in the following “CT scan shows multiple intracelebral hemorrhage in the left lemproperietal region It would be apparent from the evidence of the tangi which are sharp edged weapons. Even if we fact cannot establish involvement of both Mihir and and Jatu so as to implicate them for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the code. The eye apparent inconsistency in the eye witness account in Jatu to Manohar and all his sons. This is a very strike by Mihir on Jatu but he has not implicated transpires from the evidence of medical practitioners number of strikes made by Manohar Mihir and Prabhat cannot rely on the account of assault given by these Prabhat. Barring PW­12 the account of the incident overall impression of the strikes rather than factual evidence of PW­12 who has given specific and think the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt involvement of these two appellants Mihir and Prabhat in delivering the blows to Anil and 15. We also find that though there were assaults by Manohar Mihir and Prabhat prosecution has failed to establish on the basis of evidence that these two appellants shared common intention with Manohar assault on Anil and Jatu which forms the basis of conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the 16. Relying on a decision of a coordinate Bench Manoj Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh 7 SCC offence of the appellants could be brought within exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code and Part II of 17. We accordingly set aside the judgment of conviction of Mihir and Prabhat under Section 302 read with the aforesaid provisions is also set aside. As we find on Kasi Ram and Premchand were simple in nature judgment of the High Court on their conviction and We also set aside the conviction and sentence of these so primarily on the basis of depositions of the three medical experts PW­13 PW­14and PW­15if any stand(s) disposed of. 