Case – State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punnayya, 1977
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Fact
Sarikonda Kotamraju (deceased) with two other people boarded the bus to go to Nekarikal. Some minutes later, accused 1 to 5 also got into the same bus. When the bus stopped at Nekarikal Crossroads, the deceased and his companions alighted to go to the Police Station. The five accused also got down. The deceased and one companion went towards a Choultry while third companion went to the roadside to ease himself. Two accused picked up heavy sticks and went after the deceased into the Choultry. On seeing the accused, the companion ran away towards a hut nearby. The deceased stood up.
He was an old man. He was not allowed to run. Despite the entreaties made by the deceased with folded hands, both accused indiscriminately pounded the legs and arms of the deceased. The victim was sent to Narasaraopet Hospital. There, Doctor Konda Reddy examined him and found 19 injuries, out of which, no less than 9 were (internally) found to be grievous. The deceased, however, succumbed to his injuries the next day, despite medical aid.
Issue
Whether the offence is ‘murder’ or ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’?
Contentions and Judgement
- Justice Sarkaria observed, “In the scheme of the Indian Penal Code, ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ is its species. All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice versa.
- Whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is ‘murder’ or ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’, on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages.
The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of the victim. Proof of such casual connection between the act of the accused and the death leads to the second stage.
Second stage for, considering whether that act of the accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the third stage for considering the operation of s. 300, Penal Code, is reached.
This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of ‘murder’ contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative, the offence would be ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’, if this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’.
