# GUDAR DUSADff v. STATE OF BmAR

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 505
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-02-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1969
- **Bench:** J.M. Shelat, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gudar-dusadff-v-state-of-bmar-5563
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

111aian Penal Code (Act 45 of, 1860), s. 300, cl. thirdly-Singk blow
with lath1 on head of deceased· given deliberately-Nature of Offence.
S.ction 300, clause tbirdli, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, consists
of two parts. . Under the first part it has to be shown that there was an
intention on the pan of the acpused to infiict the particular injury whicr
was found on the body Of the deceased.
The second part requires that
the bodily injury intended to be infiicted was sufficient in the ordinary
couhe of nature to cause death. So far as the first part is concerned,
the COUJt has to see whether the injury which was found on the de0""8ed
was the one intended 1>y the accused or whether it was accidental without
his having intended to cause that bodily injury. ~
it is found that
the injury was not_ accidental and that the accused inten~ to cause the
irijury which W35 ac1ually_ infilcted and found on the body of the deceased.
the first part is satisfied.
The oourt should then go into the second part
and find, in the liaht of the medical evidence, whether the bodily _injurv
in8icted was sufficient in the ordinary cour>e of nature to cause death.
If the court finds that the requirements of both the parts have been satisfied, the case is covered by the clause unless it falls within one of the
exceptiolli!. [508 C·Fl
In tlie- present c;ise, the c~
of the case ahowed tilat the
assault by the accused on the deceased was premeditated and that the
blow given by the accused to the deceased was not accidental. . The fact
that the accused ~
the blow . on the he:id of the deceased with a lathi
•howed that it was his intention to cause the precise injurY which wa.•
found on the. head of the deceased. N the injury was deliberate and not
accidental, and as according to the medical evidence the injury was suffi·
cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and as it actually
resulted in the death of the deceased, the case would fall squarely within
the ambit of clasue 'thirdly' of s. 300, I.P.C., and the appellant would
be guilty of Jhe offence Of murder. The fact that the accused gave only
one blow would not mitigate the offence and make l:iim guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder 1508. F-H; 509 D-EJ
Observations in Cbamru Budhwa v. State of M.P., AJ.R. 1954 S. C.
652, explained and distinguished,

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
GUDAR DUSADff
v.
STATE OF BmAR
February 15, 1972
505
[J.M. SHELAT, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
111aian Penal Code (Act 45 of, 1860), s. 300, cl. thirdly-Singk blow
with lath1 on head of deceased· given deliberately-Nature of Offence.
S.ction 300, clause tbirdli, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, consists
of two parts. . Under the first part it has to be shown that there was an
intention on the pan of the acpused to infiict the particular injury whicr
was found on the body Of the deceased.
The second part requires that
the bodily injury intended to be infiicted was sufficient in the ordinary
couhe of nature to cause death. So far as the first part is concerned,
the COUJt has to see whether the injury which was found on the de0""8ed
was the one intended 1>y the accused or whether it was accidental without
his having intended to cause that bodily injury. ~
it is found that
the injury was not_ accidental and that the accused inten~ to cause the
irijury which W35 ac1ually_ infilcted and found on the body of the deceased.
the first part is satisfied.
The oourt should then go into the second part
and find, in the liaht of the medical evidence, whether the bodily _injurv
in8icted was sufficient in the ordinary cour>e of nature to cause death.
If the court finds that the requirements of both the parts have been satisfied, the case is covered by the clause unless it falls within one of the
exceptiolli!. [508 C·Fl
In tlie- present c;ise, the c~
of the case ahowed tilat the
assault by the accused on the deceased was premeditated and that the
blow given by the accused to the deceased was not accidental. . The fact
that the accused ~
the blow . on the he:id of the deceased with a lathi
•howed that it was his intention to cause the precise injurY which wa.•
found on the. head of the deceased. N the injury was deliberate and not
accidental, and as according to the medical evidence the injury was suffi·
cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and as it actually
resulted in the death of the deceased, the case would fall squarely within
the ambit of clasue 'thirdly' of s. 300, I.P.C., and the appellant would
be guilty of Jhe offence Of murder. The fact that the accused gave only
one blow would not mitigate the offence and make l:iim guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder 1508. F-H; 509 D-EJ
Observations in Cbamru Budhwa v. State of M.P., AJ.R. 1954 S. C.
652, explained and distinguished,
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
94 of 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 30, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
H
539 of 1966.
Nur-ud-din ..thmed and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
R. C. Prasad, for the respondent.
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 s.c.R.
.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Khanna, J.
Gudar Dusadb appellant was tried along with
23 others in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Saran.
Eighteen of the accused were acquitted by the trial court.
The
appellant was convicted under sections 302 and
147 Indian
Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
on the former count.
No separate· sentence was awarded to the
appellant for the offence under section 147 Indian Penal Code.
The remaining five accused were convicted under section
323
read with section 149 Indian Penal Code as well as for other
minor offences with which we are not concerned.
On appeal
'
the Patna High Court maintained the conviction and senfence
of the appellant, while some modification was made as regards the
sentence awarded to the other five
convicted accused.
The
appellant thereupon came up in appeal to this Court by special
Ieave.
The leave was, however, confined only to the ques~on
whether the offence committed by the appellant was murder or
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The case relates to an occurrence which took place in village
Khahla in district Saran at about 11 a.m. on August 14, 1965.
Ramlal Bhagat, who was aged about 65 years, died as a result of
the assault during the course of the occurrence while his son
Ramashish Prasad (PW 10) received injuries.
The case of the
prosecution is that a day before the occurrence Prasadi' Dusadh
and Ganesh Dusadh killed a goat belonging to Bahatah Bhagat
(PW 8). On the advice of Ramlal Bhagat deceased, Baharan
Bhagat lodged a report with the police at 3 p.m. on that day.
On
the morning of August 14, 1965 Ramlal and his son Ramashish
went to their paddy field.
While they were returning from the
field at about 11 a.m. they were assaulted by the six convicted
persons who had been hiding on the route.
The appellant gave
a lathi blow on the head of Ramlal as a result of which fae latter
fell down and died at the spot.
One of the companions of the
appellant then shouted that the assault was made because of
Ramlal being responsible for the commencement of criminal proceedings by Baharan. Some injuries were also caused to Ramashish.
The accused then set fire to one of their huts with a view
to prepare some kind of defence.
After that the accused fled
away.
SHO Sarju Prasad Singh of police station Barauli on receipt
of information that a large number of persons belonging to the
:>arty of the accused had collected to attack the other party in
spite of the promulgation of an order under section 144 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, came to the place of occurrence but
before that Ramlal had already been killed.
Sarju Prasad Singh
recorded the statement of Ramashish and on the basis of that
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
GUDAR DUSADH v. BIHAR (Khanna, J.)
507
statement, a formal information report was prepared at the police
station.
Post mortem examination on the body of
Ramlal~
deceased was performed by Dr. R. S. Singh on August 15, 1965.
At the trial the plea of the appellant was that he had been
falsely involved in the case at the instance of the Mukhia of the
village who was inimical to the appellant.
The two courts below accepted the prosecution case that it
was the appellant who had given a lathi blow on the head of Ram-
'lal deceased as a result of which the latter died. It was held that
the case against the appellant fell under clause "3r!lly" of section
300 of Indian Penal Code.
As such, the appellant was convicted
under section 302 Indian Penal Code.
The only question with which we were concerned in appeal
is whether the offence committed by the appellant is murder or
whether it is culpable homicide not amounting 'to murder. In
this respect we find that according to Dr. R. S. Singh who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of the
deceased, the doctor found a lacerated wound 7!' X t" bone deep
on the left side of the head of the deceased.
The injury was
ante-mortem and had been caused by a weapon like lathi.
On
dissection the doctor found 3" long fracture of ,the left · parietal
bone about 2t" frrAT, the middle line of tl\e top of th1' head.
On
removing the skull the doctor noticed large amount of blood and
blood clots on the left side of the brain. Death, in the.opinion of
the doctor, was due to compression on the left side of the brain.
The doctor further state!<! that the above injury was sufficient in
the ordinary oourse of nature to cause death.
The appellant who caused the above in jury to Ramlal
deceased, in our opinion, was guilty of the offence of murder and
he has been rightly convicted under section 302 Indian Penal
Code.
The appellant along with his companions was lying in
wait to attack Ramlal and, according_to the evidence on record
which has been accepted by the High Court, he gave a blow on
the head of Ramlal as a result of which Ramlal fell down and
died instantaneously.
It has also been found by the High Court
that there was no altercation or exchange of abuses between
Ramlal and the accused party. The circumstances of the case
thus show that the assault was premeditated and the blow on the
head of Ramlal was not accidental. The fact that the appellant
gave only one blow on the head would not mitigate the offence of
the appellant and make him guilty of the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
The blow on the head of
Ramlal with Jathi was plainly given with some force and resulted
In a 3" long fracture, ot the left parietal bone.
Ramlal deceased
died instantaneously and as such, there arose no occasion for
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
giving a second blow to him.
As the injury on the head was
deliberate and not acctdental and as the injury was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case against the
appellant would fall squarely within the ambit of clause "3rdly"
of section 300 Indian Penal Code.
According to that clause,
culpable homicide is murder if it is done with the intention of
causing bodily injury to any person and the. bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. Section 300 also provides for some exceptions but
we are not concerned with them in this case.
Clause "3rdly" consists of two parts.
Under the first part, it
has to be shown that there was an intention on the part of the
accused to inflict the particular injury which was found on the
body of the deceased.
The second part requires that the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in
the ordinary
course of nature to cause death.
So far as the first part is concerned, the court has'to see whether the injury which was fcillnd
:m the deceased was the one intended by the accused or whether
it was accidental without his having intended to cause that bodily
injury.
Once it is found that the injury was not accidental and
that the accused intended to cause the injury which was actually
inflicted and found on .the body of the; deceased, the first part shall
be satisfied. The court would then go into the second part of the
clause and find in the light of medical evidence as to whether the
bodily injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. If the court finds that the requirements of
both the parts have been satisfied, the case shall be held to be
covered by clause "3rdly" unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
In the present case, both parts of the clause "3rdly" have been
satisfied.
As observed earlier, the in jury which was inflicted by
the accused on the head of Ramlal was not accidental. It is not
the case of any one that ilie appellant aimed a blow on some other
part of the body and because ·of some supervening cause like
sudden intervention or movement of the deceased the lathi struck
the head of the deceased.
The fact that the appellant aimed a
blow on the head of Ramlal with the lathi would go to show that
it was the intention of the appellant to cause the precise injury
which was found on the head of the deceased.
The evidence of
Dr. R. S. Singh who performed post mortem examination shows
that the above injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death and actually resulted in the death of the
deceased.
The case of the appellant would thus be covered by
clause "3rdly" of section 300 and he would l)e guilty of the
offence of murder.
c
F
G
B
c
D
E
GUDAR DJJSADH v. Bll!AR (Khanna, !.)
509
Reference on behalf of the appellant hrui bCen made to the
case ot Chamru Budhwa v. Stat" of Madhya Pradesh(1). Tl)ere
was in thalt case a severe exchange of abuses betw,een .. the parties
preceding the incident.
While the abuses were being eXchanged,
the tempers rose high and both the parties came 0ut ·of their resc ....
pective houses in anger. In the course of tlie quarrel the appel- ·
lant dealt a fatal blow on the head of tlie deceased with his lathi. · ·
It was held that the crime was conunitted. •by 'the appellant Without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of pa5slon and
without the appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in
a cruel or unusual manner.
The case of the appellant was thus
held to be covered by exception 4 to section 300 of Indian Penal
Cooe and he was found guilty of. the .offence of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. It was also observed that the fatal
injury inflicted by the appellant on the head of the deceased by
one blow was not caused with the intention of causing death or
such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.
The last observation upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Nuruddin on
behalf of the appellant should be taken to have been made in the
context of the fadts of that case.
The above case docs not war-
.rant the proposition. that if the accused gives a deliberate blow on
the head of the deceased with a lathi and thereby causes an
injuzy as is sufficient in tl!e ordinary course of nature to cause
death and actually results in death, the case against him would
not fall under clause "3rdly" of section 300 of Indian Penal Code.
We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant was guilty
of <the offence of murder and not culpable homicide not amounting· to murder and that he has been rightly convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code.
The appeal consequently fails and
is dismissed.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(I) A.1.R. 1954 S.C. 652.