1999 INSC 0681
                                SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                    Pandurang Punappa Karpe

                                                  Vs.

                                        State of Maharashtra

                           (G.B.Pattanaik and N.Santosh Hegde JJ.)

                                             07.09.1999

                                               ORDER

1. The appellant alone has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for having caused
the murder of deceased Aka Ram by giving a blow by means of an axe on the chest.
Though along woth Appellant 5 other accused persons stood charged and tried but the
learned Sessions Judge acquitted 3 of them, namely, Accused 2, 5 and 6. In the
appeal, the High Court has acquitted Accused 3 and 4 but relying upon the sole
testimony of the wife of the deceased PW 4, convicted the appellant of the charge
under Section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Though Mr Deshpande
argued at length contending, inter alia, that the major part of the prosecution having
been disbelieved and participation of as many as 5 accused persons has been
disbelieved there is no grain in the evidence of PW 4 which can from the basis of
conviction and therefore the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable. But on
scrutinizing the evidence of PW 4 we are not in a position to accept the said
submission of the learned counsel. So far as the assault on the deceased by the
accused-appellant is concerned, the evidence remains unchallenged and on the other
hand it gets corroboration from the evidence of the doctor who conducted the post-
morterm examination. The learned counsel then urged that even if the prosecution has
been able to establish that the appellant gave a blow by means of an axe on the chest
of the deceased, the evidence of PW 4 will unhesitantly point out that the accused
never came with the intention of killing the deceased, though ultimately on account of
certain hot exchange of words between the deceased and the accused, the accused who
had with an axe given a blow which accidentally fell on the chest and therefore the
conviction will not be one under Section 302 but one under Section 304 IPC. The
learned counsel appearing for the state, on the other hand, contended that looking at
the severity of the blow, the situs of the body of the deceased when the blow was
given, the fact that the accused had come all the way with an axe in his hand
conclusively indicates the intention, the same being to cause the murder, and thus the
offence is under Section 302 IPC. To appreciate the correctness of rival submissions
we have examined the evidence of PW 4. Her evidence categorically indicates that
there was some quarrel between the son of the deceased and the accused persons
sometime prior to the occurrence and the son had come back home. Then the accused
persons came to the front of the house of the deceased and started abusing the wife of
the deceased, she protested, thereupon the deceased himself came forward and asked
the accused persons to go to the house and abuse but should not abuse in front of the
house of the deceased. This intervention by the deceased and altercation, ultimately
enraged the appellant who gave one blow with the weapon which he was holding in
his hand, namely, the axe and ultimately the deceased succumbed to the injury
sustained by the said weapon. The very fact that the succumbed to the injury sustained
by the said weapon. The very fact that the accused persons came to the place in front
of the house of the deceased and did not enter in to the house or assaulted the
deceased or any family members though they had the respective weapon in the hand
and merely abused the wife of the deceased but later on, on account of intervention of
the deceased there was some hot exchange of words and ultimately the appellant gave
the blow in question, is indicative of the fact that the appellant never gave the blow
with the intention of causing murder of the deceased so as to bring the offence under
Section 302. On the other hand, the appellant must be held to have known the
consequences of the blow being given and since it was a single blow the offence
would be one under Part I under Section 304 IPC. We, accordingly, set aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and instead convict him under Section
304 Part I and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.