Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2006

PUNDAPPA YANKAPPA PUJARI … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16

th

June,

2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal

No.9/2000. By the impugned judgment the High Court partly allowed

the appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka, set aside the

judgment of acquittal of the appellant for the offence under

Section 302 IPC, held the appellant guilty for the offence under

Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant –

Giriyavva, her sons, Shivalingappa, Adiveppa, deceased Mahantappa

and Pundappa as well as accused No.1, Pundappa Yankappa Pujari

(appellant herein) and accused No.2 Siddappa Pundappa Pujari are

the resident of Yankanchi village of Bagalkot’s Taluk. The land of

the deceased’s family as well as the land of the accused is

adjacent to one another. The deceased’s land is on the northern

side whereas the accused’s land is on the southern side. In

between there is a band fixed with boundary stone. There was a

dispute regarding fixing of boundary stone between the accused and

the deceased’s father Chandrappa Telagi. On 5

th

July, 1997 at about

1

Page 2 9 a.m., accused No.1 was in his land and was removing the boundary

stone. The deceased-Mahantappa questioned as to why he was

removing the boundary stone and an altercation took place between

accused No.1 and deceased-Mahantappa. While the deceased was

putting boundary stone to the pit, accused No.1 assaulted him with

an axe on his neck and caused severe fracture and injuries which

resulted in profuse bleeding whereas, accused No.2 assaulted the

deceased with a stick. Laxmavva (PW-7), who was grazing her sheep,

on seeing the incident of assault, shouted. Immediately, Sangappa

(PW-8), Chandrashekar (PW-9) rushed to the spot and witnessed the

incident of assault. Laxmawwa (PW-7) rushed towards the village.

On the way, she met Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11) and

informed them about the incident, who in turn went to the place of

incident. Further, she proceeded and informed the incident to

complainant-Giriyavva (PW-1), the mother of the deceased.

Immediately, Giriyavva (PW-1) rushed to the place of incident and

noticed the injuries. The deceased-Mahantappa was shifted to the

village by Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11). From there,

the injured was shifted to Goverdhan Hospital, Bagalkot.

3.The injured was treated by Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) on 5

th

July,

1997 and immediately, intimation was sent to Sub-Inspector of

Police, Rural Police Station, Bagalkot as per Ex.P-12. The Sub-

Inspector of Police, Sekharapa (PW-14) on receipt of Ex.P-12

proceeded to Hospital and enquired about the condition of the

injured. The Doctor issued an endorsement as per Ex.P-9 stating

that the injured was not in a position to give statement.

Thereafter, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-14) received a written

2

Page 3 complaint Ex.P-1 from Giriyavva, the mother of injured. A case in

Crime No.95/1997 for the offence under Section 326, 324 and 307

read with Section 34 IPC was registered and an FIR as per Ex.P-13

was prepared and forwarded to the Magistrate. In the meantime, the

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Gousasab(PW-13) received the

death intimation report of the injured as per Ex.P10. Accordingly,

a requisition was forwarded to the Court as per Ex.P-11 seeking

permission to alter the offence to one under Section 302 IPC. On

the same day, the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to the place

of occurrence, prepared a spot panchnama as per Ex.P-2, seized the

blood stained earth and sample earth-Material Objects (hereinafter

referred to as the “MOs”) – 1 and 2 and handed over further

investigation to the Circle Inspector of Police, Pandurang (PW-

17). The Circle Inspector of Police took over further

investigation. He recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested

accused No.1, Pundappa, seized the blood stained shirt under the

mahazar and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P-18. He

sent accused No.1, Pundappa to Hospital for medical examination

and kept him in custody. On 6

th

July, 1997, he proceeded to General

Hospital, Bagalkot, prepared the inquest panchanama on the dead

body of Mahantappa as per Ex.P-24 and recorded the statement of

the witness. He seized the blood stained towel and chaddar – M.Os

4 and 5 under the panchanama Ex.P-15. At the instance of the

accused No.1, he recovered M.O.10-axe and M.O.11-stick and

prepared panchanama Ex.P-7. The dead body was subjected to

postmortem examination. On the same day accused No.2 was arrested

and produced by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The

3

Page 4 chargesheet was filed against both the accused for the offence

under Section 302/34 IPC.

4.Learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused,

framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both

the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses, marked 24

Exhibits, produced 11 M.Os. The defence, in their turn, got marked

Exs.D-1 to D-6. The statement of the accused was recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence is one of total denial. The

accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.

6.Learned Sessions Judge for the reason recorded in his judgment

dated 15

th

December, 1998, acquitted both the accused for the

offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The said judgment of

acquittal was questioned by the State before the High Court

wherein the High Court passed the impugned judgment setting aside

the order of acquittal with respect to accused No.1-appellant,

convicting him under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view

taken by the Trial Court being reasonable, there was no occasion

for Appellate Court to reverse the order of acquittal by

expressing a different view on the same set of evidence. On the

other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the

Trial Court had committed an error and had failed to assess the

credibility and trustworthiness of the statements given by the

eye-witnesses.

8. In view of the submissions made by the parties, the point

that arises for determination is : whether the High Court is

4

Page 5 justified in interfering with the order of acquittal by reversing

the judgment of the Trial Court.

9.It is settled that if two views are reasonably possible from

the very same evidence, the Appellate court on re-appreciation of

the same evidence cannot impose its own view. The Appellate Court

may re-appreciate the evidence when it is satisfied that the Trial

Court has committed an error and has failed to consider the

credibility and trustworthiness of the account given by the eye-

witnesses. The evidence on record has to be read as a whole and it

is not proper to reject one or other evidence on the ground of

certain contradictions and omissions which do not go to the roots

of the case. If the testimony of the eye-witnesses are found

trustworthy and remained unchanged, ignorance of such testimony

can be held to be perverse.

10.In Hem Raj and another vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC

241, this Court held as follows:

“36. In this state of the evidence on record,

we find that the view taken by the trial court is

also a possible reasonable view of the evidence on

record. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is

rather inconsistent and creates a serious doubt

about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

Even if it may be possible to take a different

view, we cannot say that the view taken by the

trial court is not a reasonable view of the

evidence on record. It is well settled that if on

the basis of the same evidence two views are

reasonably possible and the trial court takes the

view in favour of the accused, the appellate

court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not be

justified in reversing the order of acquittal,

unless it comes to the conclusion that the view

taken by the trial court was wholly unreasonable

or perverse and it was not possible to take the

view in favour of the accused on the basis of the

evidence on record.”

5

Page 6 11.In T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401,

this Court observed:

“17...Where two views are reasonably possible from

the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said

to have proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt.....”

12.In the circumstances where evidence of witness is not found to

be wholly trustworthy the principle of severability can be applied

and that part of the evidence which is reliable may be accepted

and the other part can be discarded. This Court in Haji Khan vs.

State of U.P., (2005) 13 SCC 353, held:

“That part of his evidence which inspires

confidence may be accepted and the unreliable part

discarded.”

Further it was also observed that:

“9. From the evidence on record the Sessions

Court and the High Court have rightly held that the

prosecution has failed to establish the conspiracy

theory, and that the motive to commit the crime has

not been proved, but does this mean that the High

Court could not have convicted the accused placing

reliance on the statement of the eyewitnesses just

because the prosecution failed to prove a

particular theory. We do not think so. It is not

necessary that if the prosecution theory of the

conspiracy or the motive fails, the entire case

would crumble to the ground. The High Court has

found the version given by the witnesses

trustworthy and found support to their statement

from the medical evidence and lodging of the prompt

FIR, apart from the fact that the appellant was

apprehended on the spot or nearabout the spot of

crime with the weapon which was used in commission

of the crime. When the court finds that the

evidence of the eyewitnesses is true and can be

relied upon, absence of proof of motive or the

conspiracy to commit the crime would not dislodge

the prosecution from securing the conviction of the

accused on the basis of reliable evidence.”

6

Page 7 13.Laxmawwa (PW-7) in her examination-in-chief stated that she

had gone to the land of Giriyavva (PW-1), for watching the sheep

at 10 a.m. At that time the deceased, Mahantappa had come to the

land. Accused persons were present in the land. Accused No.1-

Pundappa removed boundary stone. Mahantappa asked accused No.1 as

to why he had removed the boundary stone. Accused No.1 told

Mahantappa that boundary stone shall lie there only. Mahantappa

insisted that he will put the boundary stone at the place from

where it was removed. Accused No.1-Pundappa challenged Mahantappa

to put boundary stone in its original place. When Mahantappa was

putting the boundary stone in the pit, accused No.1-Pundappa

assaulted Mahantappa with the axe on the neck. At that time

accused No.2-Siddappa assaulted Mahantappa on his head with the

stick. Accused No.1-Pundappa had assaulted Mahantappa six to seven

times with the axe on the neck and on the head. On seeing the

incident Laxmawwa (PW-7) shouted, hearing his shouting, Charge

Witnesses, CWs.13, 14 and 15 (CWs. 14 and 15 are PW-8 and PW-9

respectively) came there. When she was returning back to the

house, on her way she met CWs.-17 and 19 (PW-10 & PW-11) and she

narrated the incident to them. She proceeded further and informed

the incident to Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the Mahantappa.

Giriyavva (PW-1) went to see her son Mahantappa, who was brought

to Yankanchi village and from Yankanchi village he was shifted to

Bagalkot. Mahantappa died in the Hospital at Bagalkot at 3 p.m.

Her statement was recorded by the Police.

In her cross-examination she reiterated that she had seen the

alleged incident. She stated that accused No.1 was found sitting

7

Page 8 in his land. Mahantappa came there and took rounds in the land.

Mahantappa came to the boundary by passing through his land. She

was standing in the middle of the road. From there she heard the

exchange of words and saw the incident taking place. She went near

Mahantappa and had seen him. At that time, both the accused

persons were present there. During the cross-examination at one

stage she stated that she had not seen who had removed the

boundary stone but reiterated that when Mahantappa wanted to put

the boundary stone in the pit, accused No.1-Pundappa objected for

it and quarrel took place. When Mahantappa was putting the stone

in the pit, accused No.1 and 2 have assaulted

Mahantappa.Mahantappa fell down on the ground near the boundary

stone. Mahantappa sustained bleeding injuries and the blood had

fallen on the ground and near the boundary stone. When she

enquired from Mahantappa, Mahantappa fell down, she shouted and

when she left the spot, accused persons were still there. There is

no reason to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the

account given by this eye-witness.

14.Sangappa (PW-8), in his deposition stated that he along with

CW-13-Pundappa and PW-9, Chandrashekhar had gone to the land of

CW-24 Rangappa Sannappa Gouli for ploughing the land. At about 9

a.m. they heard the shoutings. They had seen Mahantappa being

assaulted with the axe on his neck and head, two to three times.

They had seen another person assaulting Mahantappa with the stick

on his head. When they went there, they were threatened by the

accused persons. He stated that Laxmavva (PW-7) was present there

at that time. Laxmavva (PW-7) went to the village and on the way

8

Page 9 she met Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11) and narrated

the incident to them. They had given water to Mahantappa and

thereafter Mahantappa was shifted to Vankanchi village and from

Yankanchi village, Mahantappa was shifted to Bagalkot for medical

treatment.

In his cross-examination he stated that he left the village at

7 a.m.He went to the spot on hearing the shouting and at the spot

he saw Mahantappa falling down due to assault. Thereafter, the

accused persons stood there for five minutes. When they enquired

with the accused persons as to why they had assaulted Mahantappa,

accused No.1-Pundappa went towards Sindal village taking the axe

and the stick. Accused No.2-Siddappa went to graze the sheeps.

15.Chandrasekhar (PW-9) in his statement stated that he along

with Sangappa (PW-8) and CW-13 (Pundappa) had gone for ploughing

the land of CW-24 (Rangappa) on that day at about 9 a.m. Accused

No.1 and 2 had assaulted Mahantappa and Mahantappa fell down.

Accused No.1 had assaulted Mahantappa with the axe and Accused

No.2 had assaulted Mahantappa with stick. Laxmavva (PW-7) was

present there at that time. Laxmavva (PW-7) went to the village

and informed about the incident. Giriyavva (PW-1) and the

villagers came there. Injured Mahantappa was shifted to the

Hospital at Bagalkot at 2 p.m. and finally Mahantappa succumbed to

the injuries in the Hospital.

Chandrashekar (PW-9) disputed the suggestion that the land of

Chandrashekar (PW-9) belonged to their ancestors previously. He

also disputed the suggestion that there was any dispute between

their ancestors and the accused persons regarding the land of the

9

Page 10 accused persons. In his cross-examination he reiterated that when

they heard the exchange of words, the distance between them and

those persons was about 10 feet. By the time they went there

Mahantappa was found lying on the ground. After reaching the land,

they have seen accused No.1 assaulting Mahantappa with the axe. He

denied the suggestion that the scene of offence was not visible

from the place where they were ploughing.

16.Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the deceased, is the complainant.

She stated that on the fateful day her son, Mahantappa had gone to

their land at about 7 a.m. for seeing the crop. The land of the

accused persons is adjoining to their land. At about 10 a.m., she

was present in her house. At that time, Laxmavva (PW-7) came and

informed her that her son Mahantappa was assaulted by accused

No.1-Pundappa and accused No.2-Siddappa. She went to the site of

occurrence. Her son had sustained injuries on the head and on the

back of the neck. Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (PW-11) had

come to her land at that time. Bhimappa (PW-10) had brought her

injured son, Mahantappa to the village Yankanchi. From Yankanchi

village they came to Mugalolli village and then the injured

Mahantappa was brought to Bagalkot and admitted in the Government

Hospital at Bagalkot. Mahantappa died at 3 p.m. in the Hospital at

Bagalkot.

In her cross-examination she stated that on that day at 6 a.m.

her husband left for Bagalkot. Laxmavva (PW-7) came and reported

the incident to her in the house when she alone was present in the

house. At about 9 a,m. Laxmavva reported the incident to her.

Luxmavva(PW-7) did not accompany her to her land. She went to her

10

Page 11 land alone. Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (P-11) of their own

accord came to her land by the time she reached, Bhimappa (PW-10)

and Ranganagouda (P-11) were present in her land. She further

stated that except her. Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (P-11),

none else were present in her land. At that time Mahantappa was in

a position to talk.

17.Bhimappa (PW-10) in his evidence, stated that he knows

Giriyavva (PW-1), deceased Mahantappa, accused persons and also

Ranganagouda (PW-11). He further stated that at about 9.30 a.m.

Mahantappa was found having sustained injuries on his neck and

stated that he covered a towel on the injuries of Mahantappa and

shifted him from that place. The towel and chaddar are M.Os.4 and

5.

18.Coming to the evidence of Sangappa (PW-8) and Chandrasekhar

(PW-9), we find that both of them have deposed that they heard the

shouting when they came near the place of incident, they saw

accused No.1 and accused No.2 assaulting Mahantappa with axe and

with stick. Even though the witnesses were cross-examined at

depth, no much evidence were elicited to discredit the testimony

of Sangappa (PW-8) and Chandrasekhar (PW-9). It is apparent in the

evidence of Bhimappa (PW-10) and Ranganagouda (P-11) that they

came to the land of one Rangappa Gouli for ploughing at about 7 or

7.30 a.m. then they heard the screaming and rushed to the spot

wherein they noticed the presence of Laxmavva (PW-7) who proceeded

to the village side to inform the same to the complainant

Giriyavva (PW-1).

11

Page 12 19.It is true that there are certain discrepancies in mentioning

the time of the incident. Laxmavva (PW-7) stated that the incident

took place at about 11 a.m. whereas, Sangappa(PW-8) and

Chandrasekhar (PW-9) stated that the incident of assault took

place at 9 or 9.30 a.m. Such discrepancies cannot be a ground to

disbelieve the statements of the witnesses if the difference is

about one hour, as the villagers generally suggest the approximate

time.

20.The testimony of Laxmavva (PW-7), clearly indicates that on

the day of the incident, she was grazing her sheep near the land

of Giriyavva (PW-1). According to her evidence, accused No.1-

Pundappa Yankappa Pujari was in his land whereas, accused No.2 was

grazing his sheep near Durgamma Temple. Thereafter, the deceased

Mahantappa came to his land, which is adjacent to the land of

accused persons. The deceased noticed the removal of the boundary

stone, When the deceased went to put the stone in the same pit,

there was some altercation between them regarding fixing of the

boundary stone at the very same place. It is clear from her

evidence that while Mahantappa was putting the stone in the pit,

the accused No.1 assaulted him with axe over his neck and head

three or four times. As a result, he suffered with multiple

fracture injuries and collapsed. On seeing the incident, Laxmavva

(PW-7) shouted. Then Sangappa (PW-8), and Chandrashekhar (PW-9)

who were ploughing the land at a distance of about 10 feet in the

land of one Rangappa, rushed to the spot. The testimony of

Laxmavva (PW-7) clearly indicates that it was accused No.1, who

inflicted blows with the axe on the neck and head of the deceased

12

Page 13 Mahantappa. Apart from that, though Laxmavva (PW-7) has been

lengthily cross-examined, the defence failed to bring out some

evidence that would lead to disbelieve her testimony with respect

to the incident of assault.

21.The testimony of Giriyavva (PW-1), mother of the deceased

Mahantappa shows that she knows the accused persons. She stated

that at about 10 a.m., while she was in the house, Laxmavva (PW-7)

came and informed her that her son Mahantappa was assaulted by

accused No.1 Pundappa and accused No.2 Sidappa with axe and stick

respectively. Further, she stated that then she went to the land

and saw Mahantappa lying on ground with injuries on the head and

back of the neck. She also stated that by that time Bhimappa (PW-

10), Ranganagouda (PW-11) also came to their land. Bhimappa (PW-

10) shifted her son Mahantappa to the village and from there, he

was brought to Bagalkot Hospital and admitted.

In the cross-examination, she clearly stated that on that day

at 6 a.m. her husband had left for Bagalkot. Laxmavva (PW-7) came

and reported the incident when she was alone in the house at about

10 a.m.

From the testimony of the complainant, Giriyavva (PW-1) it is

clear that when she was in the house Laxmavva (PW-7) came about 10

a.m. and informed her about the incident of assault on Mahantapp

by accused No.1 Pundappa. On a careful reading of the deposition

of the complainant, it is clear that Mahantappa left house early

in the morning towards the land to see the crop after taking food.

The fact that the deceased took food in the early morning is

supported by the medical evidence. In the postmortem report, Dr.

13

Page 14 Hanamant (PW-16) has clearly stated that stomach is intact

containing plenty of food particles more of rice. Therefore, the

testimony of Giriyavva (PW-1) is fully corroborated with medical

evidenceof Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) in so far as the deceased

Mahantappa leaving the house early in the morning.

22.The evidence of Dr. Hanamant (PW-16) shows that he examined

Mahantappa on 5

th

July, 1997 at 1 p.m. and found the following six

incised wounds:

1.“Incised wound of 5x2x2 cms. bone deep in left parietal scalp

are with blood clots.

2.Incised wound of in vertex placed long-itudinally of 5x2x2

cms. with fracture of underlying skull bone with blood clots.

3.Incised wound behind the left ear of 7x3x2 cms. with

lacerate of muscles underlying.

4.Incised wound in right part of occipital area of 5x3x2 cms

with fracture of that bone with blood clots.

5.Incised wound in right part of occipital area of 4x2x2 cms.

with blood clots and bone deep.

6.Incised wound in right parietal scalp area of 2x1x1 cms with

blood clots.

He issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P16. It is also in

evidence that on the death of Mahantappa, he conducted the post

mortem and found the following injuries.

Head is completely shaved and there were 7 stitched scalp

wounds are found all were opened and examined.

1.Cut lacerated wound along with midline in vertex of 5x1x1 cms.

with depressed fracture of right parietal bone.

2.Cut lacerated wound placed obliquely in right parietal scalp

area.

3.Cut lacerated wound of 5x2x1 cms. in upper part of occipital

area placed transversely.

4.Cut lacerated wound behind the left ear of 4x1x1 cms. placed

obliquely.

5.At the hair line at the hape of neck cut lacerated would placed

transversely of 5x2x2 cms. bone deep.

14

Page 15 6.Cut lacerated would in left part of occipital area of 5x2x1 ccms

bone deep placed obliquely.

7.Transverse cut lacerated would in right part of occipital region

of 5x2x2 cms. with fracture of that bone.

8.Abrasion of 2x2 cms. over right malar region dark brown colour.

9.Abrasion on right forehead of 4x3 cms dark brown colour.”

Thus from the nature of incised injuries found on the scalp,

it is clear that death of Mahantappa was due to injury to the

brain as a result of wounds caused to the head probably by

multiple hits by heavy sharp edged weapon and the same is marked

as Ex.P-17. There is no dispute regarding the cause of death that

the deceased met with homicidal death.

23.The aforesaid medical evidence also corroborates the

statements of Laxmavva (PW-7), Sangappa (PW-8) and Chandrasekhar

(PW-9).

24.Normally, the ploughing of the land is being done in the

morning and in the evening till sun set. This is the normal

practice. Therefore, the presence of Sangappa (PW-8) and

Chandrasekhar (PW-9) witnessing the incident is proved by the

testimony of Laxmavva (PW-7). Merely, due to some discrepancies in

the statements of witnesses as to timings 1 & ½ hour does not go

to the root of the case. The evidence on record, particularly the

testimonies of eye-witnesses -Laxmavva (PW-7), Sangappa (PW-8) and

Chandrasekhaar (PW-9) are consistent, trustworthy and fully

corroborates with one another, without giving any room to doubt

their credibility. Their evidence is also fully supported by the

testimony of Bhimappa (PW-10 and Ranganagouda (PW-11), who went to

15

Page 16 the spot after coming to know of the incident from Laxmavva (PW-

7). All the above facts directly point to the guilt of the accused

No.1.

25.We have noticed that there exists a boundary dispute between

the accused persons as well as the family of the deceased. This is

clear from the testimony of Somappa (PW-2), who has categorically

stated that 10 to 15 days prior to the incident, Chandrappa

(father of the deceased) and accused persons approached them

regarding the boundary dispute of their lands. He himself,

Sonnappa (PW-3),CWs-23 and 24 had advised both the parties and

fixed the boundaries of their lands. Thereafter, accused No.1

Pundappa got his land measured by a private surveyor. The private

surveyor confirmed the boundary fixed by the elderly persons. It

is in the evidence of Laxmavva (PW-7) that while she was grazing

the sheep near the land of Giriyavva (PW-1), there was altercation

between the deceased Mahantappa and accused No.1 regarding fixing

of the boundary stone. It is also seen from her evidence that the

boundary stone was found removed by accused No.1 and deceased

Mahantappa attempted to refix the stone at the same place. On this

the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased Mahantappa with axe over

his head and back of the neck resulting in fracture, which had led

to his death subsequently in the Hospital.

26.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on

careful examination of the act of the accused as proved by

testimony of witnesses, we are of the opinion that the said act of

accused which resulted in death of Mahantappa neither comes within

the ambit of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC nor within the

16

Page 17 scope of Section 304 IPC. It is not an act done under grave and

sudden provocation or in good faith or not an act, which he in

good faith believes to be lawful and necessary for due discharge

in his duty or not an act committed without premeditation in

sudden fight. Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly held that the

act of the accused No.1 thus falls within the ingredients of

Section 300 IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC.

27.We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. In

absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed.

……………………………………………J.

(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

……………………………………………J.

(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI,

JULY 2, 2014.

17