Karthick Mondal v. The State
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLETE JURISDICTION (CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR & THE HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH CRA 006 of 2021 Karthick Mondal -vs.- The State For the Appellant :
Mr. D. Ilango For the State :
Mr. Sumit Karmakar Heard on :
21.06.2022, 23.06.2022 & 27.06.2022 Judgment on :
07.11.2022 Tirthankar Ghosh, J:- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.03.2021 and 12.03.2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North and Middle Andaman at Mayabunder in connection with Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2019 (corresponding to Sessions Case No. 45 of 2017) wherein the learned Court was pleased to hold the appellant guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The genesis of Rangat Police Station case no. 62/17 dated 28.04.2017 was on the basis of a statement recorded by Sub-Inspector Biswajeet Prashad
of Rangat Police Station on 28.04.2017 at about 11.55 hrs. The complainant Subash Biswas stated that he resided with his family in the land of his mother Urmilla Suttar while his brother Swajit Biswas lived at Bakultala by constructing a separate house. His mother Urmilla Suttar filed a Civil Suit for partition of the land belonging to his maternal grandfather Pacchu Mondal which is at Kaushalyanagar, Ward No.5. The said case was instituted before the Senior Divisional Court, Mayabunder against maternal-uncle Karthick Mondal, aunt Bideshi Sikdar and Shibu Mondal. A letter was received from the office of Tehsildar which stated that the land would be divided among four people and in the presence of Revenue Inspector Circle No. (4), Patwari Circle No.8, Surveyor Rangat Tehsil on 28.04.2017 at 10.00 am in the morning. As such on 28.04.
2017 at around 10.00 am his mother Urmilla Suttar, aunt Bideshi Sikdar, Shibu Mondal, maternal-uncle Karthick Mondal and his two sons Haridas Mondal and Badal Mondal were present for division of land. The Revenue Inspector Circle No.4, Balku Toppo; Surveyor Prakash Bairagi; Revenue Field Assistant Shyamal Biswas; Revenue Chaudhary Anil Mondal and one Head Constable were also present there. His maternal-uncle Karthick Mondal was standing 40-50 meters away from the place where the ground measurement was in progress and after causing measurement of land they came to the verandah of the house of Krishna Mondal, son of Karthick Mondal and when everyone was speaking amongst themselves about the land, at around 10.
neck. Constable present there caught Karthick Mondal and hit the hand with which he was holding the knife, as a result the knife dropped from his hand, when Santosh Sikdar (aunt's son) and Swajit Biswas his younger brother rushed to his mother. His mother was brought to Sub-Centre, Rangat at about 11.10 hrs, thereafter some policemen came in PCR and immediately brought his mother to CHC Rangat in PCR for treatment. The complainant and his wife Baby Biswas were also present and when the PCR reached CHC Rangat, doctor examined Urmilla Suttar and declared her dead. The complainant alleges that Karthick Mondal stabbed his mother on her neck and the injury inflicted resulted in the death of his mother, Urmilla Suttar. He prayed for appropriate legal action against Karthick Mondal.
On the basis of the statement of Subash Biswas, Rangat Police Station case no.62/17 dated 28.04.17 was registered for investigation against Karthick Mondal. The Investigating Agency on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Karthick Mondal. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder took cognizance of the offence and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pleased to commit the case to Learned Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Island, Port Blair. The case was thereafter transferred by the learned Sessions Judge to the Learned Additional Sessions, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder. The learned trial Court on consideration of the materials placed by the prosecution was pleased to frame charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused Karthick Mondal. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 22 witnesses and relied upon 18 documents as also 4 material exhibits. The witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are PW1, Debendronath Bhattacharya, Pradhan of Kaushalya Nagar Gram Panchayat; Swajit Biswas, younger son of the deceased; PW3, Santosh Sikder, nephew of deceased; PW4, Subash Biswas, son of the deceased and the complainant; PW5, Mamata Mondal, niece of the deceased; PW6 Shibu Mondal, sister of the deceased; PW7, Bideshi Sikder, sister of the deceased; PW8, D.B. Bhattacharya, Assistant of the Post-mortem doctor; PW9, Suman Kanti Tirkey, ANM posted at Laxmipur Sub-Centre; PW10, Balku Toppo, Revenue Inspector; PW11, Prakash Bairagi, Surveyor; PW12, Anil Mondal, Village Chaudhary; PW13, Dr.
Augestina, Post-mortem doctor; PW14, Dilip Kumar Singh, Head Constable who was present at the place of occurrence; PW15, Biswajeet Prashad, Duty Officer of Rangat Police Station; PW16, Narayan Mondal, PRI Member of gram panchayat; PW17, B.K. Dixit, Head Constable who registered the FIR; PW18, Shyamal Biswas, Revenue Field Assistant; PW19, K.P. Abdul Arif, Inspector of Police who prepared FIR and the Investigating Officer; PW20, Dr. Soma Roy, expert of CFSL; PW21, M. Maheshwari, expert of CFSL and PW22, T. Hemawati, Investigating Officer who filed supplementary charge-sheet.
The documents so relied upon by the prosecution include Ext.1, superdighnama; Ext.2, seizure list relating to seizure of wearing apparels of deceased; Ext.3, seizure list relating to seizure of blood stained full sleeve shirt and one lungi of accused Karthick Mondal; Ext.4, Inquest Report; Ext.5, seizure list relating to seizure of blood sample of deceased; Ext.6, seizure list relating to seizure of blood stained knife, blood stained stone chips, controlled sample stone chips, blood stained soil and controlled soil; Ext.7, statement of PW4; Ext.8, Post-mortem Report; Ext.9, Formal FIR; Ext.10, site plan with index; Ext.11/1, upper portion of Injury Report; Ext.12, Custody Memo; Ext.13, Inspection Memo; Ext.14, charge-sheet; Ext.15, Forensic Report of Dr. Soma Roy; Ext.16, Forensic Report of M. Maheshwari; Ext.17, supplementary charge-sheet; Ext.18, statement of Bideshi Sikder recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The materials which were exhibited in support of the case are MAT Ext.I (collectively), wearing apparels and broken bangle of Urmilla Suttar /deceased; MAT Ext.II (collectively), blood stained wearing apparels of the accused Karthick Mondal; MAT Ext.III, knife; MAT Ext.IV, blood stained earth, stone chips and controlled earth.
PW1, Debendronath Battacharya is the Pradhan of Kaushalyanagar gram panchayat. He deposed that there was a land dispute between the accused Karthick Mondal and his sister Urmilla Suttar and on 28.04.2017 between10.00 to 10.30 am Karthick Mondal stabbed his sister Urmilla with a
knife on her neck at the courtyard of his son Krishna situated at Kaushalyanagar. The injured/victim/Urmilla was brought to Sub-Centre Kaushalyanagar by police and her elder son, first aid was administered there and thereafter she was shifted to CHC Rangat where the doctor declared her as brought dead. After post-mortem, dead body of Urmilla Suttar was handed over to her elder son Subash. The witness signed on the superdighnama, he identified his signature in Court which was marked as Ext.1/1. Witness also identified the wearing apparels and broken bangles as also the signature in the seizure list which were marked as MAT Ext.I and Ext.2/1 respectively.
Witness also deposed that on the same day in the evening he visited Rangat Police Station where he found the accused Karthick Mondal wearing a lungi and full sleeve shirt which was blood stained. The said blood stained wearing apparels of Karthick Mondal was seized by way of a seizure list which was signed by the witness, he identified his signature in the seizure list which was marked as Ext.3/1. The wearing apparels of Karthick Mondal was identified by him in Court which was marked as MAT Ext.II. He also narrated that the accused was arrested by the police authorities. It was deposed that on the next day police had been to Kaushalya Nagar at the place of occurrence, when he accompanied them and the police authorities collected blood stained earth, stone chips and controlled earth.
The witness also identified his signature on the Inquest Report which was marked as Ext.4/1. He also signed on the seizure list in respect of the blood of the deceased being seized by police authorities.
signature on the seizure list was marked as Ext.5/1. The witness identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court.
PW2, Swajit Biswas, is the son of deceased Urmilla Suttar. He deposed that on 28.04.2017 at about 10.00 to 10.30 am, the staff of Revenue Department came to Kaushalyanagar for measurement of a land of his mother and Karthick Mondal. The staff of Revenue Department were preparing rough sketch map sitting in front of the house of Krishna Mondal and when he along with his brother Subash Biswas, Santosh Sikder, Bideshi Sikder and one police personnel and some villagers were present there. He stated that the house of Subash Biswas was adjacent to the house of Krishna Mondal. When he left the house of Krishna Mondal and was proceeding to his brother Subash Biswas's house he heard that his brother Subash Biswas was calling him by narrating that Karthick Mondal stabbed his mother with a knife on her neck.
The witness rushed to the spot and thereafter along with other persons brought the injured/deceased Urmilla Suttar to Sub-Centre Kaushalyanagar where first aid was administered. PCR vehicle came and took his mother to CHC Rangat, he along with Pradhan had been to CHC Rangat where doctor declared his mother as brought dead. However, after post-mortem his mother's body was handed over to them. The witness also stated that he signed on a seizure list wherein the blood stained earth and stone chips were seized. He identified his signature in the seizure list which was marked as Ext.6/1. The knife was also seized in his presence. He identified the knife which was marked as MAT Ext.III.
produced before him which he identified and the same was marked as MAT Ext.IV (with objection). Witness also identified his signature in the Inquest Report which was marked as Ext.4/2. Karthick Mondal was identified by the witness in Court.
PW3, Santosh Sikder, at the relevant point of time worked as DRM at CHC Rangat and is the nephew of the deceased Urmilla Suttar as well as the accused/appellant Karthick Mondal. He stated that Urmilla Suttar filed a Civil Suit at Mayabunder Court for getting her share in the property left by his maternal grandfather late Paturam Mondal and she got a decree in the case. On 28.04.2017 staff of Revenue Department and police personnel came to the land of Late Paturam Mondal for effecting partition. The staff of Revenue Department inspected the land and were preparing rough sketch map for partition of the said land sitting in the verandah of the house of Krishna Mondal. Police personnel, Subash Biswas, Urmilla Suttar, his mother Bideshi Sikder and his elder aunt Shibu Mondal were present there.
He was standing at a distance of about 10 meters away and Karthick Mondal was standing on the bank of the pond. Karthick Mondal came from bank of the pond to the spot and was talking with the staffs of the Revenue Department. At about 10.0010.30 am Karthick Mondal pushed Subash Biswas and stabbed Urmilla Suttar on her neck with a knife. After sustaining injury she fell down on the ground and police personnel caught Karthick Mondal on the spot.
PCR van. He accompanied Urmilla Suttar in PCR van. Urmilla Suttar was taken to casualty ward of CHC Rangat where Doctor Duja Antony and Rekha Verma after examination of Urmilla Suttar declared her dead. The dead body of Urmilla Suttar was kept in front of male ward, where police prepared panchnama/inquest report. After post-mortem dead body was handed over for the last rites to be performed. In the evening police came to the spot and seized blood stained earth, blood stained stone chips, control earth, stone chips and knife in his presence, he signed on the seizure list as a witness, he identified his signature on the seizure list in Court and his signature was marked as Ext.6/2. He also identified the knife which was seized by the police in Court which was marked as MAT Ext.III. The seized blood stained earth, blood stained stone chips, control earth and stone chips which were seized by police were seized and shown to the witness in Court which was identified by him and marked as MAT Ext. IV. He also identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court.
PW4, Subash Biswas, is the son of the deceased Urmilla Suttar and the complainant. He stated that his maternal uncle Karthick Mondal committed murder of his mother Urmilla Suttar on 28.04.2017 at about 10.40 am in the house of Krishna Mondal situated at Kaushalyanagar. At the time of partition of land, Patwari, Revenue Inspector, one police personnel and two labours were sitting in the verandah of Krishna Mondal. He and his mother were also present at the place. He was standing beside his mother. His maternal uncle Karthick Mondal was standing about 50 meters away from that place and all of
a sudden Karthick Mondal came and pushed him and stabbed on the shoulder of his mother by knife. He held his mother and started shouting when his younger brother Swajit Biswas came there. Police apprehended Karthick Mondal at the spot and he along with his brother took their mother to SubCentre, Kaushalyanagar for treatment. Police informed the matter to Rangat Police Station where police van came. He along with his mother and aunt Bideshi Sikder and Shibu Mondal went to CHC Rangat. After some time doctor informed that his mother has died. Police recorded his statement at CHC Rangat and after recording his statement police officer read over the same and thereafter he signed it. He identified his signature on his statement (fardbayan) which was marked as Ext.7/1. After post-mortem police handed over the dead body of his mother and he received the dead body and signed on superdighnama, his signature on superdighnama was marked as Ext.1/2. He also identified Karthick Mondal in Court.
PW5, is Mamata Mondal who is the niece of deceased and daughter of Bideshi Sikder. She stated that on 28.04.2017 after receiving information that her aunt Urmilla Suttar died she went to CHC Rangat, at that time police took her signature on a document for the purpose of conducting post-mortem examination of the dead body of Urmilla Suttar. She identified her signature in the Inquest Report which was marked as Ext.4/3. She stated that she heard that the deceased Urmilla Suttar filed a suit for partition and got a decree. The partition was being effected and at that time Karthick Mondal her maternal
uncle murdered her aunt Urmilla Suttar. She identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court.
PW6, Shibu Mondal, the sister of the deceased Urmilla Suttar, deposed that Pachu Ram Mondal was her father, deceased Urmilla Suttar was the youngest sister and Bideshi Sikder is her younger sister while Karthick Mondal is her brother. She deposed that her father was a settler and was residing at Kaushalya Nagar. Her sister Urmilla Suttar filed a suit for partition and got a decree in the said suit. On the date of the incident land measurement was in progress for the purpose of partition, in presence of police. In the varendah of the house of Krishna Mondal she along with her two sisters, Subash son of Urmilla and sons of Karthick Mondal were present. Karthick Mondal stabbed Urmilla near collar bone with knife. She called local people so that Urmilla could be shifted to hospital and it was son of Urmilla who took her to SubCentre Kaushalya Nagar from where she was shifted to CHC Rangat by police vehicle, after reaching CHC Rangat doctor declared her dead. She identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court.
PW7, Bideshi Sikder is the sister of deceased Urmilla Suttar. She stated that her sister Urmilla was murdered two years ago by her brother Karthick Mondal. On the date of the incident measurement of land was in progress and at that time Revenue Inspector, Patwari and police were sitting at the verandah of Krishna Mondal. She herself along with her elder sister Shibu Mondal and deceased were present at the verandah where Karthick Mondal stabbed her
sister on her neck. After sustaining injury Urmilla fell on the ground and she was taken to Kaushalya Nagar Sub-Centre, from where she was shifted to CHC Rangat by police vehicle and she accompanied Urmilla to Koushalya Nagar Sub-Centre to Rangat. Her statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate at Mayabunder Court in connection with the case and after recording her statement learned Magistrate took her LTI on the said statement. She identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court. PW8, D.V. Bhattacharya, is a sweeper posted at CHC Rangat. He deposed that on 28.04.2017 he was posted at the same place and he assisted Dr. Augustina who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of Urmilla. After post-mortem examination he handed over wearing apparels of deceased to police in presence of two Pradhan and signed on the seizure list. He identified his signature on the seizure list which was marked as Ext.2/2. He also identified the wearing apparels and the broken bangles of the deceased which was marked as MAT Ext.I.
PW9,is Suman Kanti Tirkey, ANM posted at Laxmipur Sub Centre. He deposed that on 28.04.2017 he was posted at Kaushalya Nagar Sub Centre under CHC Rangat. On 28.04.17 Urmilla Suttar was brought to Sub-Centre Kaushalya Nagar at about 11.00 am, there was no active bleeding injury, however, after examination he did not find pulse, blood pressure, respiration and by that time PCR van arrived and he immediately referred Urmilla Suttar
to CHC Rangat. He also deposed that he found injury on the side of the neck of Urmilla Suttar.
PW10, Balku Toppo is the Revenue Inspector who was posted on 28.04.17 at Tehsil Rangat. He deposed that a suit was decreed by the Court for partition of the property and he served notice to both the parties. On 28.04.17 he along with Surveyor and Revenue Field Assistant went to the house of Karthick Mondal. After reaching there at around 10.00 am, he told Karthick Mondal that he was required to come to field for measurement and demarcation, when Karthick Mondal told him he was not feeling well and will not go to field but his two sons would go there. Thereafter he along with the sons of Karthick Mondal and other parties to the suit went to field to see their respective possession. He thereafter came to the house of Krishna Mondal and was sitting at the verandah of the house.
He pointed out to Krishna Mondal and other parties to the suit regarding the proposed partition which was to be effected in the sketch map. All of a sudden he heard sound of shouting and police personnel snatched knife from the hand of Karthick Mondal. Urmilla was lying on the ground after sustaining bleeding injury on her neck. He informed the matter to Tehsildar. And the police personnel present there informed the matter to SHO, Rangat. He further stated that the children of Urmilla took her to Sub-Centre and from where by police vehicle she was shifted to CHC Rangat. The witness identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court.
PW11, Prakash Bairagi is the Surveyor of Tehsil Rangat. He deposed that on 28.04.17 he along with Revenue Inspector, Chainman, village Chowdhary and one head constable went to Koushalya Nagar for demarcation of land of Karthick Mondal and others in view of the decree passed in partition suit between Urmilla Suttar and Ors -Vs. - Karthick Mondal and Ors. and at about 10.00 am started measurement. After completion of measurement he along with others were sitting at the verandah of Krishna Mondal and was busy preparing the partition plan. At that time Karthick Mondal represented by his sons, UrmillaSuttar, BideshiSikder and one sister of Urmilla Suttar were present there.
Bideshi Sikder and her sister were standing in front of him when he was preparing the partition plan, while all of a sudden one of the sisters shouted do not kill, when he stood up and saw that Urmilla Suttar was lying on the ground after sustaining bleeding injury on the left side of her neck and there was a knife in the hand of Karthick Mondal. Head constable snatched the knife from the hand of Karthick Mondal and apprehended him. Two sons of Urmilla Suttar took their mother to Kaushalya Nagar Sub-Centre and thereafter she was shifted to CHC Rangat by police vehicle. Police arrested Karthick Mondal and took him away. He went to CHC Rangat and came to know that Urmilla Suttar was brought dead at CHC Rangat. The witness identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court. PW12, Anil Mondal is the village chowdhary at Tehsil Rangat.
He deposed that on 28.04.
went to Kaushalya Nagar for partition of land of Karthick Mondal and his sister as per decree passed in partition suit. He stated that all the officials reached the spot at around 10.30 to 11.00 am and two sons of Karthick Mondal and the three sisters were present with them. After demarcation of land they were sitting in the verandah of house of Krishna Mondal and three sisters were standing on stair case, all of a sudden he heard sound "chaku mere dilo", he stood up and saw that Urmilla was lying on the ground after sustaining bleeding injury and the head constable apprehended Karthick Mondal and snatched knife from his hand. Two sons of Urmilla Suttar were standing at a distance and they came to the spot and took away their mother to Sub-Centre Kaushalya Nagar, police was also informed.
Urmilla Suttar was shifted to CHC Rangat by PCR van and subsequently at CHC Rangat he came to know that she had died. The witness identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court. PW13 is Dr. Augestina who was posted as Medical Officer, on 28.04.17 at CHC Rangat. She deposed that on 28.04.17 post-mortem examination over dead body of Urmila Suttar was held from 01.45 to 02.45 pm at CHC Rangat and after performing the post-mortem she prepared post-mortem examination report. The post-mortem examination report except column No.13 (which was filled up and signed by the police officer) was marked as Ext.8. She expressed her opinion that death occurred due to excessive blood loss caused by injury in major blood vessels because of bleeding due to haemorrhagic shock.
She also stated that location and nature of the wound indicated that the wound was homicidal in nature.
and handed over the same to police, police seized the blood samples by way of a seizure list. She identified the signature in the seizure list which was marked as Ext.5/2. The witness on an enquiry by the Court answered as follows: "Through Court:
11. I found an oblique incised wound of size 7 cm in length, 2.5 cm in breadth, 12 cm in depth and its part on the right side of neck, 1 cm above right color bone to mid line of neck, in the direction from right to left backwards and downwards with injury to underline major vessels and soft tissues. The injury was ante mortem.
12. The probable time of death of the deceased was less than 3 hours prior to starting of autopsy."
PW14 is Dilip Kumar Singh who is head constable of police posted as incharge of Charulangta Out post under PS Rangat. He stated that on 27.04.17 he received the letter of PS Rangat directing him to maintain law and order duty at the time of demarcation/partition of land of Karthick Mondal and others near market of Kaushalya Nagar. On 28.04.17 at about 9.15 am he started from the Charulangta Out post and reached to Kaushalyanagar bazaar at about 9.30 am and was waiting for Revenue Inspector and Patwari. At about 10.00 am Surveyor and one chainman came to Kaushalyanagar bazaar, thereafter, he along with officials went to the house of Karthick Mondal situated near bazaar. Revenue Inspector called Karthick Mondal for demarcation of land, when he represented that he was not well and his sons would participate in the demarcation. Revenue Inspector, Surveyor, chainman accompanied him to the land where three sisters of Karthick Mondal and one
son of the sisters were present. The Revenue Inspector and Surveyor and chainman initially saw the entire land and thereafter all of them went to the house of Krishna Mondal. The Revenue Inspector and Surveyor were preparing a rough sketch for proposed partition of the land at the verandah of Krishna Mondal and after preparing rough sketch map of proposed partition plan showed the same to the co-sharers. When the three sisters and two sons of Karthick Mondal were going through the proposed partition plan, he saw Karthick Mondal coming towards the house of Krishna Mondal from the land by holding hand of his grandson.
After reaching the house of Krishna Mondal, Karthick Mondal was moving in the courtyard holding hand of his grandson on the backside of the sisters of Karthick Mondal and sons of Karthick Mondal, who were inspecting the proposed site plan. All of a sudden Urmilla Suttar fell on the backside and everyone was shouting "packdo packdo', all other persons who were present on the stairs rushed to pick up Urmilla Suttar and found that there was bleeding from neck of Urmilla Suttar and Karthick Mondal was holding hair of Urmilla by his left hand and he had knife on his right hand. Karthick Mondal was shivering and tried to flee away.
He chased and apprehended Karthick Mondal and tried to snatch knife from his hand but in the meantime he tossed the knife in a bush of banana plants and on hearing hue and cry son of other sisters of Karthick Mondal came to the spot and tried to assault Karthick Mondal but I pushed them away. They took injured Urmilla to Kaushalyanagar sub-Centre.
Karthick Mondal. PCR Van came to Kaushalyanagar bazaar and after sometime Urmilla was sent to CHC along with her relatives and other police personnel took custody of Karthick Mondal. After 11⁄2 hrs. he came to know that Urmilla was declared dead at CHC Rangat. The accused Karthick Mondal was identified by him in Court.
PW15, is Biswajeet Prasad, Sub-Inspector of police who was posted on 28.04.17 at Rangat Police station. He stated that on 28.04.17 he was duty officer of Rangat Police Station and at about 10.45 am he received telephone call from Kaushalyanagar, informing him that one lady was stabbed with knife. Immediately he proceeded to Kaushalyanagar along with head constable Sommaiah and constable Anil who was driving the police vehicle. He reached near Kaushalyanagar Sub-Centre, the injured was brought to the police vehicle and the neck of the injured lady was covered with cloth. The injured lady was brought to CHC Rangat and after examination of the injured lady, doctor declared her brought dead. He recorded statement of son of the deceased, namely Subash at CHC Rangat near male ward and took his signature on that statement.
He identified the statement of Subash which was marked as Ext.7. He deployed HC Sommaiah at CHC Rangat and left for PS Rangat by departmental vehicle and after reaching to PS he reported to SHO, PS Rangat and handed over the statement of Subash to PS Rangat. PW16 is Narayan Mondal, a PRI member of Bakultala Gram Panchayat.
was 100 meters away from his house. On 28.04.17 in the morning Urmilla Suttar told him that he was going for Kaushalyanagar for her paternal property. On the same day at about 12.30-01.00 pm he heard from daughterin-law of Urmilla Suttar that Karthick Mondal stabbed Urmilla Suttar with knife. After getting such information he rushed to CHC Rangat, when he reached he heard Urmilla Suttar has already expired and she was taken for Post-mortem examination. Police seized wearing apparels and broken bangles of the deceased Urmilla. He identified his signature on the seizure list which was marked as Ext.2/3. He also stated that police seized blood sample of deceased in his presence and he signed the seizure list as a witness, he identified his signature in the seizure list which was marked as Ext.5/3. He also signed on the superdighnama i.e.
memo of handing over and identified his signature in court which was marked as Ext.1/3. The witness identified his signature in the seizure list by which the blood stained wearing apparels of Karthick Mondal was seized at Rangat Police Station, the same was marked as Ext.3/2. He also identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court. PW17, B K Dixit was posted on 28.04.17 at PS Rangat and was in-charge of Head Mohrir of PS Rangat. He stated that on 28.04.17 at about 12.15 hrs. SHO PS Rangat handed over him one fardbayan of Subash Biswas and directed him to register FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Karthick Mondal. He prepared FIR No. 62/17 dated 28.04.
signature of Inspector P K Abdul Arif. He identified the formal FIR in Court which was marked as Ext.9.
PW18 is Shyamal Biswas the Revenue Field Assistant posted at Port Blair Settlement Office and was earlier posted on 28.04.17 at Rangat Tehsil. He stated that on 28.04.17 he along with Surveyor Prakash Bairagi, Revenue Inspector Balku Toppo and Revenue Chowdhari Anil Mondal and one police personnel namely Dilip Kumar Singh went to the house of Karthick Mondal at village Kaushalyanagar for implementing the order of the Court for partition. At about 9.30-10.00 am he along with officials reached at the house of Karthick Mondal when Revenue Inspector requested KarthickMondal for accompanying them for measurement when he refused and replied that his two sons would be accompanying them. He along with officials and two sons of Karthick went to the field for measurement where sisters of Karthick Mondal were already present.
After measurement they came to the house of Karthick Mondal and sat at the verandah of Krishna Pada Mondal for preparation of partition plan. The sisters of Karthick Mondal were standing on the ramp when the map was drawn. Karthick Mondal came there and someone said that Karthick Mondal stabbed his sister Urmilla with knife. Police personnel Dilip Kumar Singh apprehended Karthick Mondal. The injured Urmilla was taken to Sub-Centre Kaushalyanagar and police was also informed. The injured was taken to CHC Rangat and subsequently he came to know that the injured succumbed to death. The witness identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court.
PW19 K P Abdul Arif was posted as SHO PS Rangat. He stated that on 28.04.17 SI Biswajeet Prasad handed him a statement of Subash Biswas and on the basis of statement of Subash Biswas FIR no. 62/17 dated 28.04.17 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation against Karthick Mondal. Form was filled up by Head Constable B.K. Dixit. He identified his signature on the Formal FIR which was marked as Ext.9/1. He took up investigation of the case, prepared copy of FIR and fardbayan and proceeded to CHC Rangat. The witness stated the chronology by way of which he conducted the investigation by collecting materials which included the seized materials, seizure list, medical report, port-mortem report and the statement of the witnesses as also the other relevant materials.
On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet no. 91/17 dated 01.07.17 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Jurisdictional Court. He identified the accused Karthick Mondal in Court. PW20 is Dr. Soma Roy who is Assistant Director and Scientist at CFSL, Kolkata. She identified the report which was prepared by her in her official computer and signed by her with her official seal, the same was marked as Ext.15. She also stated that she forwarded the report to Superintendent of Police, N & M A by Director, CFSL, Kolkata, Dr. N.S. Pandey. The forwarding letter which contained the signature was identified by her and marked as Ext.15/1.
PW21 is Dr. M. Maheshwari who is scientist of CFSL, Kolkata. On 19.09.17 she received four sealed paper packets from Biology Division CFSL, Kolkata for examination. She stated that the seals were tallied and found to be intact. The period of testing was between 05.10.17 to 31.10.17. She stated that she prepared the report in her official computer and signed the same with her official seal. The said report was marked as Ext.16. The forwarding letter which was signed by the Director CFSL, Kolkata was identified by her and marked as Ext.16/1.
PW22 is T Hemawati who was posted on 16.02.2018 at Rangat PS. She submitted supplementary charge-sheet in connection with Rangat PS case no. 62/17 dated 28.04.17 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code after receiving report from CFSL. She identified the charge-sheet which was filed in Court.
Mr. D. Ilango Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the deceased Urmilla Suttar was having two sisters and one brother. The brother namely, Karthick Mondal has been accused in the instant case. The dispute between the deceased and her brother Karthick was going on for several years regarding division of ancestral land measuring about 4.01 hectors. It is submitted that after the demise of parents of the deceased, the accused, Karthick Mondal used to cultivate the said land and out of the said earning he spent for marriage of sisters and settled their lives. Few years after marriage of Urmilla Suttar she filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Civil
Judge Senior Division, Mayabunder and got a decree in her favour. Learned advocate contended that the issue of demarcation created a dispute and which resulted in the victim being stabbed with a knife on her collar bone extending towards her neck, for which the major blood vessel got damaged and sister of accused succumbed to her injuries. It has been argued that none of the witnesses have been able to substantiate the prosecution case and to that extent Learned advocate submitted that PW1 the gram panchayat in crossexamination stated that he was not present at the time of the alleged incident and was available at the bazaar which was about 200 meters away from the place of occurrence and so he could not have heard the hue and cry from the spot.
The witness could not even state regarding the exact time of shifting of the deceased to the hospital neither he could say as to whether the injury was on the right or left side of the deceased. PW2, although was son of the deceased was a hearsay witness. PW3 could not even name the revenue staffs of the department who were present at the spot and did not see from where the knife was recovered, however, the witness was not an independent witness and was daughter of the sister of the deceased. PW4 stated that accused stabbed on the shoulder where as the injury is on the neck as reflected in the post-mortem examination and PW5 is not an independent witness a she is the daughter of the sister of the deceased and not an eye-witness. PW6 and PW7 deposed that they have not seen the appellant inflicting blow with the knife upon the deceased.
whereas seizure memo which has been marked as Ext.6 indicates the seizure of the knife was made at about 16.45 hrs in front of the house of Krishna Mondal, this witness has also not seen as to who stabbed the deceased and has only stated that the constable Dilip Singh snatched the knife from the hands of the accused. PW11 has also not seen the accused stabbing the deceased and has only seen the head constable snatching the knife from the hands of Karthick Mondal and apprehended him. PW12, has stated that he has seen the head constable apprehending Karthick Mondal and was snatching the knife from his hands and has also admitted in cross-examination that he has not seen the assailant while stabbing the deceased.
PW14 stated that he saw Karthick Mondal tossing the knife in the bush of banana plant while chasing and apprehending him, however, he did not state that he has seen the accused while stabbing the deceased. The doctor has opined that there was only one injury in the left side of the neck while the injury was on the shoulder. PW18 also admitted that he has not seen the accused stabbing the deceased and has further stated that the sons of the victim were never present at the spot and they reached the spot after hearing hue and cry. PW19 the investigating Officer of the case has stated that he has seen the knife in front of the house of Krishna Mondal and he has also admitted that the appellant Karthick Mondal was physically assaulted and had to be treated by the doctor.
the knife at the spur of moment which would not attract the provision of Section 302 of IPC and would only attract the provision of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant argued that the assault and number of injuries on the person of the deceased was sufficient to establish that there was no intention to kill the deceased but he had the knowledge that the injuries may cause death of the victim, thus in such circumstances the accused can only be held guilty under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Reference to this extent has been made to Tholan -Vs. - State of T.N. reported in AIR 1984 SC 759.
Appellant also argued that the accused has inflicted bodily injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but it did not extend to the intention of causing death and to that extent the learned Advocate has distinguished the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code with respect to intention and knowledge. Relying upon Hem Raj -Vs. - The State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1990 Supp. SCC 291; Thangaiya -Vs. - State of T.N. reported in AIR 2005 SC 1142; Jeet Singh -Vs. - State of Haryana reported in (2005)11 SCC 597; Jagrup Singh -Vs.
- State of Haryana reported in AIR 1981 SC 1152, it has been argued that the facts of each case would vary as to whether the provisions of Section 302 or Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is to be attracted and for that purpose, the size of the weapon, the place where the assault took place, the background of the facts leading to the assault and the part of the body where blow was inflicted are to be taken into consideration.
knife which in the ordinary course is used in the kitchen and cannot be an instrument for murder by an accused who is aged about 78 years. To that extent learned Advocate submitted that the evidence on record would reflect that accused came to the spot by holding the hands of his grandson which would show that he was not a very healthy person. Thus by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the accused had any intention to cause death though he may have the knowledge that stabbing the deceased may result in her death. Further, it was argued that the accused did not behave in a cruel or unusual manner and as such Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is attracted.
Additionally it has been stated that the possibility of getting annoyed and sudden quarrel in the heat of passion cannot be ruled out in the instant case and as such the act of the accused can only fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, reference has been made to Jasram -Vs. - State of M.P. reported in (2005) 12 SCC 176. Learned Advocate also referred to the evidence of PW13, the Medical Officer who opined that death occurred due to excessive blood loss caused by injury of major blood vessels leading to hemorrhagic shock. Referring to the injuries it was submitted that the injury was 1 c.m. above the right collar bone midline of neck and the size of the injury was 7 c.m. in length, 2.5 c.m. in breadth and 12 c.m. in depth.
death of the deceased or that the intention to cause fatal injury in a particular manner but can only be related to the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which may cause death. Thus in absence of positive proof the appellant caused death of the deceased with the intention of causing death or intentionally inflicting a particular injury which in ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death do not attract Clause 1 nor Clause 3 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Arguments were also advanced regarding the non-matching of blood group of the deceased with the seized articles and that recovery of knife not being made pursuant to a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Counsel concluded his argument in two fold manner, firstly the evidence of the prosecution has failed to make out any offence for convicting the appellant and secondly, even if it is presumed that the accused/appellant has committed the offence the same would be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Sumit Karmakar, learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and each of the witnesses deposed in a clear and distinct manner and stood the test of cross-examination of the defence. An analysis of the evidence would show that there was a dispute between Karthick Mondal the appellant herein and the deceased Urmilla Suttar who filed a suit for partition of the ancestral property. Evidence also revealed that Karthick Mondal/appellant showed his reluctance to join at the time of survey and
represented that his two sons would be available. The prosecution witnesses categorically stated that Karthick Mondal all of a sudden struck the deceased Urmilla Suttar with a knife on her neck. The three factual circumstances are consistent and corroborated. The plea of the appellant that some of the witnesses are not independent witnesses are not acceptable because the present is a case where a brother has murdered his sister and at a place when survey was conducted for partition of the property, thus it would be natural and common that the eye-witnesses would be the relations which are common to both the families. State has also added, that the very fact of alternate argument being advanced by the appellant goes to show that the factum of appellant stabbing the deceased is accepted.
It is only the mode and manner of the offence which has been challenged by way of an alternate argument by the Appellant. It has been further argued by the State that motive and intention in this case is on the basis of records, the decree of the Civil Court and parting of the property resulted in a grudge and the murder was effected on the said ground. It is emphasized that the present case has been proved under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is bound to suffer the imprisonment for life as held by the learned Trial Court. Before analysing the evidence on record as well as the submissions advanced by the appellant and the State the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requires consideration.
The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Raj -Vs. - Union of India & Ors., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 457, paragraph 30 is relevant and is set out as follows:
"30. In the present case, as stated above there was due deliberation on the part of the appellant and he assaulted the deceased a day after he misbehaved with him. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel that the appellant had no intention to cause death of the deceased has no merit and, accordingly, it is rejected."
In Manubhai Atabhai -Vs. -. State of Gujarat reported in (2007) 10 SCC 358, paragraphs 8 and 9 are relevant, which are set out as follows: "8. The nature of intention has to be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon death. In the instant case the accused had used a knife, the blade of which had a length of 6 inches. The injury was caused just below the stomach and had affected a vital part i.e. liver. Knife had gone as deep as 6 cm in the body which clearly is indicative of the fact that blow was given with great force and the outcome of the injury was that the deceased expired instantaneously. The deceased as it is admitted was trying to pacify the parties and there was no part played by him in the exchange of words which was taking place.
9. Trial court's conclusions are very confusing. For recording conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC, the trial court recorded that it was a case of exercise of right of private defence and only one blow was given and there was a counter-case. If it was really a case of exercise of right of private defence, there could not have been any
conviction much less under Section 304 Part I IPC. Merely because a single blow was given that does not automatically bring in application of Section 304 Part I IPC."
In Stalin -Vs. - State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2020) 9 SCC 524, relevant paragraphs of this judgment are set out as follows: "7.1. It is the case on behalf of the appellant-accused that as it is a case of single injury, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted and the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. While considering the aforesaid submission, few decisions of this Court on whether in a case of single injury, Section 302 IPC would be attracted or not are required to be referred to:
7.1.1. In Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. [Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P., (2000) 1 SCC 319 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 178] , this Court while deciding the question of whether a single blow with a knife on the chest of the deceased would attract Section 302 IPC, held thus: (SCC pp. 322-23, para 9) "9. ... there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction under Section 302 IPC, in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him. In the instant case, the deceased was disabled from saving himself because he was
held by the associates of the appellant who inflicted though a single yet a fatal blow of the description noted above. These facts clearly establish that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. In any event, he can safely be attributed the knowledge that the knifeblow given by him was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
7.1.2. In Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat [Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, (2003) 9 SCC 322 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1809] , this Court while discussing the ingredients of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, held thus: (SCC pp. 327-28, para 11) "11. The fourth exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with a case of prosecution (sic provocation) not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do.
There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1, but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact, Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon an equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and blows on each side.
one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed.
To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case.
For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage"."
7.1.3. In Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. [Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri)
500] , this Court while deciding whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II IPC, held thus: (SCC pp. 457-58, para 29) "29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality.
At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302.
so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may." 7.1.4. In Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. [Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P., (2010) 9 SCC 799 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1498] , this Court while deciding the question whether a blow on the skull of the deceased with a crowbar would attract Section 302 IPC, held thus: (SCC p. 803, para 16) "16.
In our opinion, as nobody can enter into the mind of the accused, his intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the nature of the injuries caused. Here, the appellant had chosen a crowbar as the weapon of offence. He has further chosen a vital part of the body i.e. the head for causing the injury which had caused multiple fractures of skull. This clearly shows the force with which the appellant had used the weapon. The cumulative effect of all these factors irresistibly leads to one and the only conclusion that the appellant intended to cause death of the deceased."
7.1.5. In State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal [State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal, (2019) 5 SCC 639 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 674] this Court in paras 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 held as follows: (SCC pp. 643-44) "7.3. In Arun Raj [Arun Raj v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 457 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 155] this Court observed and held that there is no fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted, Section 302 would not be attracted. It is observed and held by this Court in the
aforesaid decision that nature of weapon used and vital part of the body where blow was struck, prove beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the accused to cause death of the deceased. It is further observed and held by this Court that once these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows.
7.4. In Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar [Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 10 SCC 604 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 397] , the death was caused by single blow on head of the deceased with a wooden pestle. It was found that the accused used pestle with such force that head of the deceased was broken into pieces. This Court considered whether the case would fall under Section 302 or Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. It is held by this Court that the injury sustained by the deceased, not only exhibits intention of the accused in causing death of victim, but also knowledge of the accused in that regard. It is further observed by this Court that such attack could be none other than for causing death of victim.
It is observed that any reasonable person, with any stretch of imagination can come to conclusion that such injury on such a vital part of the body, with such a weapon, would cause death. 7.5. A similar view is taken by this Court in the recent decision in Leela Ram [State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram, (2019) 13 SCC 131 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 528] and after considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the issue on hand i.e. in case of a single blow, whether a case falls under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I or Section 304 Part II, this Court reversed the judgment [Leela Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 SCC OnLine Raj 945] and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Rajasthan v. Leela Ram, (2019) 13 SCC 131 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 528] , SCC pp. 140-41) '19. Under Exception 4, culpable homicide is not murder if the stipulations contained in that provision are fulfilled. They are: (i) that the act was committed without premeditation; (ii) that there was a sudden fight; (iii) the act must be in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; and (iv) the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.'" 7.1.6. In Bavisetti Kameswara Rao [Bavisetti Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P., (2008) 15 SCC 725 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 175] , this Court has observed in paras 13 and 14 as under: (SCC pp. 72931) "13.
It is seen that where in the murder case there is only a single injury, there is always a tendency to advance an argument that the offence would invariably be covered under Section 304 Part II IPC. The nature of offence where there is a single injury could not be decided merely on the basis of the single injury and thus in a mechanical fashion. The nature of the offence would certainly depend upon the other attendant circumstances which would help the court to find out definitely about the intention on the part of the accused. Such attendant circumstances could be very many, they being (i) whether the act was premeditated; (ii) the nature of weapon used; (iii) the nature of assault on the accused. This is certainly not an exhaustive list and every case has to necessarily depend upon the evidence available.
As regards the user of screwdriver, the learned counsel urged that it was only an accidental use on the spur of the moment and, therefore, there could be no intention to either cause death or cause such bodily injury as would be sufficient to cause death.
by the accused in his business, it could not be as if its user would be innocuous.
14.
In State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam [State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam, (1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] this Court considered the usual argument of a single injury not being sufficient to invite a conviction under Section 302 IPC. In that case the injury was caused by a knife. The medical evidence supported the version of the prosecution that the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The High Court had convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC relying on the fact that there is only a single injury. However, after a detailed discussion regarding the nature of injury, the part of the body chosen by the accused to inflict the same and other attendant circumstances and after discussing clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC and further relying on the decision in Virsa Singh v.
State of Punjab [Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818] , the Court set aside the acquittal under Section 302 IPC and convicted the accused for that offence. The Court (in Vedanayagam case [State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam, (1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231] , SCC p. 330, para 4) relied on the observation by Bose, J. in Virsa Singh case [Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818] to suggest that: (Virsa Singh case [Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818] , AIR p. 468, para 16) '16. With due respect to the learned Judge he has linked up the intent required with the seriousness of the injury, and that, as we have shown, is not what the section requires. The two matters are quite separate and distinct, though the evidence about them may sometimes overlap.'
The further observations in the above case were: (Virsa Singh case [Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818] , AIR p. 468, paras 16-17) '16. The question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present. If he can show that he did not, or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an inference, then, of course, the intent that the section requires is not proved. But if there is nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whether he knew of its seriousness, or intended serious consequences, is neither here nor there.
The question, so far as the intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness, but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. But whether the intention is there or not is one of fact and not one of law. Whether the wound is serious or otherwise, and if serious, how serious, is a totally separate and distinct question and has nothing to do with the question whether the prisoner intended to inflict the injury in question.
17. It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be linked up with the seriousness of the injury. For example, if it can be proved, or if the totality of the circumstances justify an inference, that the prisoner only intended a superficial scratch and that by accident his victim stumbled and fell on the sword or spear that was used, then of course the offence is not murder. But that is not because the prisoner did not intend the injury that he intended to inflict to be as serious as it turned out to be but because he did not intend to inflict
the injury in question at all. His intention in such a case would be to inflict a totally different injury. The difference is not one of law but one of fact; ....'"
(emphasis in original) 7.2. From the abovestated decisions, it emerges that there is no hard-and-fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence."
In State of Uttarakhand -Vs. - Sachendra Singh Rawat reported in (2022) 4 SCC 227 paragraph 10 of the said judgment is set out as follows: "10. In Pulicherla Nagaraju [Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 500] , this Court had an occasion to consider the case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the intention to cause death. It was observed and held by this Court that the intention to cause death can be gathered
generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances:
(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;
(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free-for-all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation;
(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;
(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows." I have considered the evidence appearing in this case and I find that the relations and the Revenue Officers were present at the spot when the incident took place. As such the evidence of some of the witnesses assume importance in this case and they are divided into two categories, firstly, relatives which include PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 and secondly, the official witness who were associated with the survey i.e. PW10, PW11, PW12 and PW14. Some of the witnesses belonging to the formal category particularly PW3, nephew of
the deceased and the appellant has stated in his evidence that he has seen the incident with his own eyes. The relevant part of which is as follows: "At about 10 to 10:30 AM, Kartick Mondal pushed Subash Biswas and stabbed Urmila Suttar on her neck by knife. Urmila Suttar after sustaining bleeding injury fell on the ground. Police personnel caught Kartick Mondal on the spot......"
This witness was cross-examined in detail along with vexed suggestions but in no way the defence/appellant could shake this witness regarding the fact that he saw the appellant stabbing the deceased with his own eyes. PW4, Subash Biswas in his evidence stated that he witnessed the incident with his own eyes, the relevant part is set out as follows: "...All of a sudden Kartick Mondal came and pushed me and stabbed on the shoulder of my mother by knife...." The witness was cross-examined in detail by the defence/appellant but the witness stuck to his version regarding the factum of Karthick Mondal stabbing his mother and in fact, in cross-examination, he categorically deposed "It is fact that I stated in my examination in chief that Kartick Modal stabbed my mother on her shoulder."
In fact, the learned trial Court also placed question regarding the location of injury to which the answer of the witness was reduced in writing by the learned trial Court as follows: "Through Court:- The witness had shown before court the exact location of stab injury caused by Kartick Mondal to his mother Urmila Suthar.
stab injury as shown by the witness on his body is located near collar bone."
PW6, is sister of both the appellant and the deceased. She deposed as follows: "....Kartick Mondal stabbed Urmila near collar bone by knife...." In her cross-examination on a specific question by the defence she stated "I had seen Kartick Mondal while he was picking up knife from wound after stabbing near collar neck of Urmila."
In the background of the evidences of all three eye-witnesses the evidence of PW14, Dilip Kumar Singh who was the head constable and was also present along with Revenue Inspectors and Officers assume importance. He in his evidence stated that initially he along with Revenue Inspector, Surveyor, Chainman had been to the house of Karthick Mondal for demarcation of land. Karthick Mondal came out of his house and told that he is not well and his sons will participate in the demarcation proceeding.
The said witness also deposed that when the three sisters of Karthick Mondal and two sons of Karthick Mondal were seeing the proposed partition plan, then Karthick Mondal was coming towards the house of Krishna Mondal by holding hand of his grandson and after reaching there he was moving in the courtyard holding hand of his grandson slowly on the backside of the sisters, all of a sudden he found Urmilla Suttar falling on the backside when everyone was shouting 'packdo packdo'.
right hand. Karthick Mondal was shivering and trying to flee away, when he chased and apprehended him and tried to snatch the knife from his hand, in the meantime he dropped the knife in the bush of banana plants. The evidence of these four witnesses goes to rebut the argument that there was a sudden quarrel at the place of occurrence when the appellant struck with a knife on the deceased. It would be pertinent to point out in this case that the impression created by the defence at the time of the argument is devoid of material, particularly regarding the age of the appellant. The conduct of the appellant in this case shows that he had a culpable mental state which he wanted to implement and as such did not accompany the Revenue Officers but subsequently arrived there.
The evidence of the eye-witness goes to show that he pushed PW4 and struck the deceased with the knife. The anger of the appellant is also evident from the deposition of the PW14 who stated that the appellant was holding hair of the deceased with his left hand and was shivering before trying to flee away. The act and conduct of the accused prior to the incident, at the time of the incident and after the incident do not suggest that he struck the blow at the hit of the moment or by way of any provocation or reacted in response to a situation which cropped up during survey. The totality of the circumstances reflects that the appellant had the intention from the very inception to murder the deceased Urmilla Suttar because of the decree of the Civil Court and for the purpose of parting with the share of ancestral property.
The charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in this case have been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no scope for interference with the judgment of conviction and sentence so imposed by the Learned Trial Court.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal 006 of 2021 is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of. Department is directed to send back the Lower Court Records and communicate this judgment to the learned Court below. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. I agree.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)