AMBARAM v. STATE OF M.P

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 866

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

AMBARAM v. STATE OF M.P.pdf

Judgment text

AMBARAM v. STATE OF M. P. APRIL 27, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] ) Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302134-Murder-Common intention-Fi/thy language used by Appellant and other accused while taking drinks-Deceased's sister objected, on which she was assaulted-At this stage deceased intervened but he was also assaulted-Appellant assaulted deceased with axe-He acted on exhortation made by others-At least one injury received by deceased attributed to Appellant-Common intention may develop at the spot- Appellant rightly convicted under ss. 302134. According to the prosecution, Appellant and the other accused were taking drinks near the house of PW9. They started hurling filthy abuses and were creating nuisance when PW9 came out of her house and asked them to behave themselves. But the accused started assaulting PW9. When one accused hurled a stone at PW9, her brother intervened but he was caught by the accused.

Appellant who was carrying an axe, inflicted a blow on his head from its blunt side. Another accused shot an arrow at deceased. He fell down unconscrous and lat~r succumbed to his injuries. Trial Court held Appellant and other accused guilty under Section 302/149 IPC. High Court convicted Appellant and two other accused under Section 302 r/s 34 IPC. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: l. 1. At least one ofthe ante-mortem injuries received by deceased attributed to the appellant. The injuries found on the person of the deceased both by the Doctor in his injury report as also in the post-mortem report, . ,, support the prosecution case. [Para 12) [869-D, E) 1. 2. Appellant, took an active part in assaulting the deceased. From the materials on record, it appears that he actively associated himself in the entire episode. Appellant and a co-accused assaulted the deceased with axe whereas another accused shot an arrow.

They have been allegedly shouting 'kill-kill'. Apart from that, it appears that the appellant has also assaulted another person on his head. There was absolutely no reason as to why the appellant together with others would assem hie for taking drinks in front of the house of the deceased and that too armed with such lethal weapons. They were merely asked not to create a nuisance and to behave themselves as they had been hurling abuses in filthy languages. It was not a case where PW-9 gave any provocation. She was unarmed. She was a lady, still then she was assaulted. Intervention by the deceased being her brother at that stage cannot be said to be unusual. It is, therefore, not a case where injuries were caused on a sudden provocation or in a fit of angler. Appellant does not claim a right of private defence. He is said to have been injured but no medical certificate was produced. [Para 13) (869-E, F, G; 870-A) 1. 3. In any event, appellant was carrying common intention.

Common intention may develop at the spot. Appellant acted on exhortation made by others. He participated in the entire occurrence. He was carrying a dangerous weapon. He assaulted not only the deceased but also another person. [Para 19) (872-C) Shajahan & Ors. v. State ofKera/a and Anr. , (2007) 7 SCALE 618 and Raj Pal and Ors. v. State ofHaryana, [2006) 9 SCC 678, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 19. 05. 2006 of the High Court p of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 1998. Anis Ahmed Khan and Shoaib Ahmed Khan for the Appellant. Dr. N. M. Ghatate, C. D. Singh and Morusagar Samantaray for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 2.

Appellant herein was convicted for commission of an offence under Sections 148, 302/149 ofthe Indian Penal Code alongwith several other persons namely Hukum, Girdhari, Patiram, Narayan and Prahlad. 3. Prosecution case shortly stated is as under:- Savitribai and other members of her family were sitting in the courtyard of the former's house at about 4 p. m. on 2. 3. 1991. Prahladsingh, Ambaram, Patiram, Hukum, Narayan and Girdhari were drinking liquor. They started hurling filthy abuses. Savitribai came out from her house and asked them to behave themselves. They adopted a hostile stance. They started assaulting J her, causing injuries inter alia by throwing stones. When Accused Hukum hurled a stone at her, Prem Singh, brother of Savitribai intervened. He was caught by them. Hukum pelted a stone at him causing injury on his head. · Ambaram, who was carrying an axe, inflicted a blow on his head from its blunt side. Other accused persons entered her house.

Patiram brought a bow and arrow and shot an arrow at Premsingh. He fell down unconscious. One Chandrakalabai pulled out that arrow. Others who were returning from the weekly market intervened. At least six ofthem namely Himmatsingh, Gendalal, M. ansingh, Kamalasingh, Savitribai and Phool Singh were injured by the appellants. 4. Some of the accused persons in the process also appeared to have suffered injuries. It is alleged that not only the aforementioned persons suffered injuries at the hands of the accused, even the tiles of the roof of Savitribai's house were also damaged. 5. Prem Singh succumbed to his injuries on 3. 3. 1991. 6. Homicidal nature of death of Prem Singh is not disputed. The learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the materials brought on record by the ,. ,, prosecution held the appellants guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court, however, convicted only Ambaram, Hukum and Prahlad under Section 302/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. Appellant Girdhari was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Only appellant Ambaram is before us. 8. A limited notice was issued by this Court in regard to the nature of offence. 9. Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ' clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probability as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury .... sufficient in the ordinary course ofnature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result ofthe injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature. ' ' " 18. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Kalarimadathil Unni v.

State ofKerala is an apt illustration of this point. " (Emphasis Supplied) 18. The said decision does not support Mr. Ahmed's contention. It runs ) counter thereto. 19. In any event, appellant was held to be carrying common intention. Common intention may develop at the spot. Appellant acted on exhortation made by others. He participated in the entire occurrence. He was carrying a dangerous weapon. He assaulted not only the deceased but also another. 20. We therefore, are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. . B. B. B. Appeal dismissed. t '{