NDLI: Anbazhagan Vs. The State Represented By The Inspector of Police

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860 – Alteration of conviction from s. 304-I to s.304-II of IPC
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – Alteration of conviction from s. 304-I tos.304-II of IPC – Single injury – Prosecution case that appellantand deceased picked up verbal altercation in regard to the pathwayand the appellant had inf licted one blow with a “Hoe”-aagricultural/gardening tool on the head of the victim-deceased asa result of which the victim fell unconscious and later died – TrialCourt held appellant guilty for the offence of culpable homicidenot amounting to murder u/s. 304-I of the IPC and sentenced him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years – HighCourt dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction of the appellantu/s. 304-I of the IPC – On appeal, held: The difference between thetwo parts of s. 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crimeof murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefitof one of the exceptions to s.300 of the IPC, while under the secondpart, the crime of murder is never established at all – Therefore, forthe purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishableunder the second part of s.304 of the IPC, the accused need notbring his case within one of the exceptions to s.300 of the IPC –Looking at the overall evidence on record, it is difficult to come tothe conclusion that when the appellant struck the deceased withthe weapon of offence, he intended to cause such bodily injury aswas sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – Theweapon of offence in the instant case was a common agriculturetool not a weed axe – The appellant could only be attributed withthe knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likelyto cause the death – It is in such circumstances, the case on handdoes not fall within clause thirdly of s.300 of the IPC – In view ofthe principles of law, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 304 Part Iof the IPC is altered to one u/s. 304 Part II of the IPC – For thealtered conviction, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of five years. Penal Code, 1860 – ss.299, 300 and 304 Part-II – Singleinjury – In determining the question, whether an accused had guiltyintention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injuryis inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary courseof nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done withoutpremeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstancesjustify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that heonly intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guiltyknowledge, and the offence would be one u/s. 304 Part II of theIPC.Penal Code, 1860 – s. 304 Part-I – Applicability of – Section304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases: (i) whenthe case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300,but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) whenthe injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which iscovered by the expression ‘sufficient in the ordinary course of natureto cause death’ but is of a lower degree of likelihood which isgenerally spoken of as an injury ‘likely to cause death’ and thecase does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii)when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensuebut without intention to cause death or an injury likely to causedeath.Penal Code, 1860 – Intention to kill – Intention to kill is notthe only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder – Theintention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary causeof nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murderif death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injuryor injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in theinjury or injuries.Penal Code, 1860 – s.299 and s.300 – discussed.Criminal Law – Intent and knowledge – discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 632
Petitioner	Anbazhagan
Respondent	The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police
SCR	[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1091
Judgement Date	2023-07-20
Case Number	2043

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Anbazhagan Vs. The State Represented By The Inspector of Police

Please Log-in to view this content

N. Ramkumar Vs. The State Rep. By Inspector of Police

Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

R. Jayapal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Selvam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector of Police

State Rep. By Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan & Anr.

Kumar Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Elavarasan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

State, Represented By Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu Vs. Sait & Krishnakumar

Arumugam Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Anbazhagan Vs. The State Represented By The Inspector of Police

Anbazhagan Vs. The State Represented By The Inspector of Police

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

N. Ramkumar Vs. The State Rep. By Inspector of Police

Alamelu & Anr. Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

R. Jayapal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Selvam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector of Police

State Rep. By Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan & Anr.

Kumar Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Elavarasan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

State, Represented By Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu Vs. Sait & Krishnakumar

Arumugam Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Anbazhagan Vs. The State Represented By The Inspector of Police