LI Network
Published on: December 20, 2023 at 15:34 IST
The Gujarat High Court has recently ruled that a solitary injury resulting in death can be classified as ‘murder’ under Clause 3 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Following this, the Court, after convicting the accused, emphasized the perpetrator’s exploitation of the victim’s vulnerability and deliberate cruelty in delivering the fatal blow.
The Court’s decision came in response to an appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused. The State contended that the Trial Court had overlooked crucial evidence, such as 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 of Justices AS Supehia and MR Mengdey, relying on the decision in Anbazhagan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, 2023 SC 3660, clarified that even a single injury, if objectively sufficient to cause death, falls under Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC and constitutes murder.
In its prior order, the Court had nullified the acquittal of Prakash Mithubhai Mulani (First Accused) on murder charges, citing flaws in the Trial Court’s consideration of crucial evidence. The Court emphasized that the deceased succumbed to injuries inflicted by the First Accused, specifically targeting the vital neck region with a knife, severing a crucial blood vessel.
The Court highlighted the distinction between Section 300, addressing murder, and Section 299, addressing culpable homicide, emphasizing the role of intent and knowledge. It clarified that a solitary injury could qualify as murder if objectively lethal and the accused was conscious of the associated risk. The court also noted that, even if 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 examined the distinction between Part I and Part II of Section 304, emphasizing the significance of interpreting “likely” as synonymous with “probably” in causing death.
It differentiated the mens rea requirements across various clauses, emphasizing that the intent to cause a potentially lethal injury transforms culpable homicide into murder.
The Court noted that, in cases involving deaths from a single injury, the accused’s intent is deduced from surrounding circumstances.
The Court held that the accused had acted with undue advantage and cruelty by inflicting a precise blow to cut the deceased’s vein after restricting his movement. It emphasized that the accused was armed with a knife when the deceased inquired about their teasing of his sister.
The Court sentenced the First Accused to life imprisonment, along with a Rs. 5,000 fine and a default imprisonment of six months for non-payment. Recognizing the extended time period, the court granted the accused a 21-day window to surrender voluntarily before the relevant trial court. The appeal was approved.
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Prakash @ Piddu Mithubhai Mulani & 1 Other(S)
