2018 INSC 0570
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL     NO.1540 OF 2017
Lakshmi Chand and another ....Appellant(s)
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh ...Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
The   two   appellants   stand   convicted   under   Sections
323   r/w   34,   324   r/w   34   and   307   r/w   34   IPC   to   undergo
one   year,   two   years   and   eight   years   of   rigorous
imprisonment   respectively.     Appellant   No.2   has   been
additionally   convicted  under  Section  304  Part  II  r/w  34  to
undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   eight   years   and   fine
with a default stipulation.
2. The genesis of the assault lies in an occurrence in the
morning   of   15.04.1980.     The   bullocks   of   the   appellants
strayed   into   the   neighbouring   compound   of   the   deceased,
1

Prem   Lal   who   drove   them   out   with   a   lathi,   leading   to   an
altercation   with   the   accused   Kashmira,   since   deceased.
The   latter   went   back   to   his   house,   and   returned
immediately   armed   with   a   lathi,   accompanied   by   the
appellants,   who   were   also   armed   with   an   iron   rod   and   a
knife   respectively.   They   together   assaulted   the   deceased
Prem   Lal.   PW­1,   Banarasi,   the   informant,   and   PW­2,
Omveer,   an   injured   witness   and   another   injured   witness
Rajendra   Singh   intervened   by   picking   up   a   lathi   from   the
ground   and   retaliated   in   self­defence.   The   appellants   then
scampered away  from the place of occurrence.   The fourth
accused was held to be a juvenile. 
3. The   post­mortem   of   the   deceased   done   by   PW­7,   Dr.
B.K.   Mishra,   revealed   three   abrasions   on   the   abdomen,
back and shoulder apart from two incised wounds, muscle
deep,   on   the   scapula   and   the   left   thigh,   leading   to   cut   of
the femoral artery.  Death was attributed to the last injury.
The abrasions were opined to have been caused by a lathi.
PW­3   and   Rajendra   Singh   sustained   simple   injuries,   as
2

opined by PW­6, Dr. Ajeet Singh, attributable to a knife and
iron rod. 
4. The   High   Court,   in   appeal,   after   consideration   of   the
evidence,   concluded   that   common   intention   could   not   be
inferred   in   the   facts   of   the   case.   The   appellants   were   held
liable   for   their   individual   acts.   The   conviction   of   the
appellants   under   Section   302   r/w   34   IPC   was   set   aside.
Further,   holding   that   the   assault   on   the   deceased   had
taken   place   on   the   spur   of   the   moment,   preceded   by   an
altercation,   without   any   premeditation,   the   conviction   of
appellant no.2 was altered to one under Section 304 Part II
r/w   34   IPC.     The   rest   of   conviction   was   sustained   relying
on the injury reports of PW­2 and Rajendra Singh. 
5. Shri S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants, submitted that from the injuries suffered by
them it is manifest that they had acted in self­defence and
were   not   the   aggressors.     The   High   Court   has   concluded
the   absence   of   any   common   intention   leaving   each
3

appellant   answerable   for   his   own   acts.     If   that   be   so,   and
the injuries caused to PW­2 and Rajendra Singh have been
found   to   be   simple   in   nature,   their   conviction   under
Section   307   r/w   34   IPC   is   not   sustainable.     It   was   lastly
submitted   that   there   was   no   intention   to   cause   death,
much less knowledge can be attributed from  the nature of
the   assault.     The   fortuitous   cutting   of   the   femoral   artery
cannot   impute   either   intention   or   knowledge.     Had   the
intention   been   to   cause   death,   the   appellants   would   not
have   run   away   without   accomplishing   their   task,   and   the
assault   would   have  been   made  with   more  severity   on  vital
parts   of   the   body.   The   conviction   of   appellant   no.2   under
Section   304   Part   II   IPC   is   therefore   also   not   sustainable.
The offence deserves to be reduced and/or alternatively the
sentence was excessive in  the facts of the case arising  out
of   a   dispute   between   neighbours   over   cattle   that   had
strayed.     Reliance   was   placed   on   Darshan   Singh   and
others   vs.   State   of   Punjab ,   2009   (16)   SCC   290   and
Maqsood   and   others   vs.   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh ,   2016
(15) SCC 748.
4

6. Learned   counsel   for   the   State   opposing   the   appeals
submitted   that   the   conviction   of   the   appellants   called   for
no interference.   Knowledge under Section 304 Part II IPC,
that death was likely to be caused can easily be attributed
to appellant no.2 from the nature of the assault made with
severity   leading   to   the   femoral   artery   being   cut   and   which
was   the   cause   of   death.     The   injured   had   suffered   assault
on   the   head   also,   a   sensitive   part   of   the   human   body   and
therefore the conviction under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC also
called for no interference. 
7. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the
parties.     The   occurrence   undoubtedly   had   taken   place   at
the   spur   of   the   moment   without   premeditation.     It   cannot
be   said   that   the   appellants   had   any   common   intention   to
kill   or   knowledge   that   death   was   likely   to   ensue.   The
appellants   only   intended   to   vent   their   ire   against   their
neighbour for having assaulted their bullocks. Having been
better equipped with an iron rod and a knife, there was no
5

occasion for them to scamper away when confronted by the
others   especially   when   PW­1   was   an   old   man   aged   about
61   years.     If   there   existed   no   common   intention   each
appellant was liable for his own individual acts as observed
in  Darshan Singh  (supra).
8.  PW­6,   Dr.   Ajeet   Singh   has   deposed   that   the   injuries
on   PW­2   and   Rajendra   were   simple   in   nature.   There   is   no
consideration   of   the   nature   of   injuries   in   the   conviction
under Section 307 r/w 34.  The conviction of the appellants
to that extent is held to be unsustainable and is set aside. 
9. The   deceased   is   stated   to   have   succumbed   to   the
injury on the thigh leading to the cut of the femoral artery.
The  injury   is attributable to  appellant  no.  2.   The  absence
of   any   common   intention   makes   him   individually
answerable.     His   conviction   under   Section   304   Part   II   IPC
therefore calls for no interference.  But considering that the
occurrence   took   place   at   the   spur   of   the   moment,   the
assault was not made on a vital part of the body, that the
assailant   ran   away   upon   being   challenged,   the   genesis   of
6

the   assault   lay   in   a   dispute   between   neighbours   with
regard to strayed cattle, and that the occurrence had taken
place   long   ago   in   1980,   we   are   satisfied   to   reduce   the
sentence of appellant no. 2 to a period of two years relying
on  Maqsood  (supra).
10. Resultantly,   the   conviction   of   the   appellants   under
Sections 323 r/w 34 and 324 r/w 34 is not interfered with.
The   sentence   of   appellant   no.2   under   Section   304   Part   II
I.P.C. is altered from eight years to two years.  
11. The   appeal   is   allowed   only   to   the   extent   indicated
above. 
…………...................J.
[Navin Sinha]
…………...................J.
[K.M. Joseph]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 24, 2018
7