Mirza Hidayatullah Baig Vs. State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Mar-02-1979 |
| Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1973 |
| O. Chinnappa Reddy and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ. |
| AIR1979SC1525; (1979)3SCC321; 1979(11)LC423(SC) |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302 and 304 |
| Mirza Hidayatullah Baig |
| State of Maharashtra |
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 323 & 342: [dr. arijit pasayat & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] causing hurt -police official alleged to have illegally detained and beaten complainant in police station no evidence to show that complainant was kept for four days in police station, even if it is true that he was taken to police station on 10.5.1988 - telegrams sent by him to higher authorities on 12.5.1988 did not refer to illegal detention - in fact he was found to be taken to custody on 13.5.1988 - he got admitted to hospital on 14.5.1988 held, on facts, conviction of accused police official by high court under sections 323 and 342 of i.p.c., is not proper. - in the circumstances we are satisfied that the appellant did not have the intention to cause the particular injury which has resulted from the blow given to the deceased. in these circumstances, this case clearly falls within the ambit of section 302(ii) ipc......limited point of the applicability of section 302 to the present case. mr. kohli appearing for the appellant has contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of the weapon used, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased akhtar hussain. the evidence shows that an altercation started over the passing of dirty water through the drain in front of the house of the deceased. an altercation followed in course of which the appellant is said to have given a came stick blow to the deceased. the weapon was merely a walking stick blow to the deceased the weapon was merely a walking stick and would not have normally caused the death of the deceased. in the circumstances we are satisfied that the appellant did not have the intention to cause the particular injury which has resulted from the blow given to the deceased. but as the appellant aimed the blow at the head of the deceased which is a vital part of the body, there can be no doubt that he must be presumed to have the knowledge that death was the likely result of his act. in these circumstances, this case clearly falls within the ambit of section 302(ii).....
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. This appeal has been passed on the limited point of the applicability of Section 302 to the present case. Mr. Kohli appearing for the appellant has contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of the weapon used, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased Akhtar Hussain. The evidence shows that an altercation started over the passing of dirty water through the drain in front of the house of the deceased. An altercation followed in course of which the appellant is said to have given a came stick blow to the deceased. The weapon was merely a walking stick blow to the deceased The weapon was merely a walking stick and would not have normally caused the death of the deceased. In the circumstances we are satisfied that the appellant did not have the intention to cause the particular injury which has resulted from the blow given to the deceased. But as the appellant aimed the blow at the head of the deceased which is a vital part of the body, there can be no doubt that he must be presumed to have the knowledge that death was the likely result of his act. In these circumstances, this case clearly falls within the ambit of Section 302(II) IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Pt. II and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone as we understand that the appellant who was not granted bail has already served about six years. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.