{"id":195752,"date":"2003-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003"},"modified":"2017-06-08T16:15:17","modified_gmt":"2017-06-08T10:45:17","slug":"augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  854 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nAugustine Saldanha \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVs.\n\nState of Karnataka\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/08\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
[With Criminal Appeal No. 1734 of 1996]<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
These two appeals relate to the common judgment of Karnataka High <\/p>\n
Court whereby the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was <\/p>\n
set aside. Augustine Saldanha- appellant in Criminal appeal no.854\/1996 <\/p>\n
was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal <\/p>\n
Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for <\/p>\n
life.  Rocky Saldanha-appellant in Criminal appeal no.1734\/1996 was <\/p>\n
found guilty for offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and <\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. They were also <\/p>\n
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000\/- and Rs.1,000\/- respectively with <\/p>\n
default stipulation of six  months SI and one month SI respectively.  <\/p>\n
Accusations which formed foundation of prosecution version are <\/p>\n
essentially as follows:\n<\/p>\n
On 17.5.1989 Paul Saldanha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the <\/p>\n
deceased’) and Felix Saldanha (PW1) were returning to their houses <\/p>\n
after viewing a movie.  When they reached near the house of the <\/p>\n
appellants, accused Augustine and Rocky along with Henry Saldanha <\/p>\n
(acquitted) assaulted the deceased. They were armed with sticks.  As a <\/p>\n
result of the assaults the deceased breathed his last while PW1 <\/p>\n
suffered grievous injuries.  The incident took place between 10.00 to <\/p>\n
10.30 p.m. On next day morning around 5.15, PW8 ASI, of Mulki Police <\/p>\n
Station received information from an unknown person of Kumeri that two <\/p>\n
bodies were lying at Shadguri of Aikala village. Though he could not <\/p>\n
ask the name and address of the informant, he made entries in the <\/p>\n
General Diary and proceeded to the spot along with other police <\/p>\n
personnel.  At the spot he found dead body of the deceased and PW1 in <\/p>\n
injured condition. They were taken to hospital and complaint (Exhibit <\/p>\n
P-1) was recorded. PW8 registered the FIR after coming to the police <\/p>\n
station, and dispatched the same to the Magistrate at Mulki which was <\/p>\n
received at about 11.15 a.m. Investigation was undertaken on the basis <\/p>\n
of the report of PW1, and after completion thereof charge-sheet was <\/p>\n
placed.  It needs to be noted that on the basis of information given by <\/p>\n
the accused while in custody recoveries were made. In the complaint <\/p>\n
(Exhibit P-1) the informant PW1 had stated that he could see assailants <\/p>\n
by focussing a torch. He had lost consciousness temporarily, but when <\/p>\n
he was in sense, could hear that PWs 3 and 4 i.e. two taxi drivers were <\/p>\n
asked by the accused to shift him and deceased to different places; but <\/p>\n
they refused to do so.  In Court, apart from the evidence of PW1 the <\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 3 and 4 were also tendered and pressed into service to <\/p>\n
substantiate the accusations. The Additional Sessions Judge of Dakshina <\/p>\n
Kannada, Mangalore found the evidence of PW1 to be not believable and <\/p>\n
directed acquittal, and the circumstances which weighed with him are as <\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
Credibility of the report (Exhibit P-1) was doubted because the <\/p>\n
injury sustained by PW1 was so serious that he was given treatment in <\/p>\n
the emergency room and it was highly improbable that he would have been <\/p>\n
in a position to give statement  (Exhibit P-1). While PW8 stated that <\/p>\n
he had  recorded the complaint, handwriting therein was similar to <\/p>\n
those in which Exhibits P-8 to P-10 (Panchnamas) were written. <\/p>\n
Prosecution version was also doubted because PW2 stated at one place <\/p>\n
that PW1 had been taken out of the hospital at the time of spot <\/p>\n
inspection, he stated subsequently that PW1 was not taken out. The <\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 was also discarded on the ground that there were <\/p>\n
exaggerations and improvements and there was no specific mention about <\/p>\n
identification by torch and moonlight in Exhibit P-1 as was stated in <\/p>\n
Court. Only in the first information report, it was mentioned that <\/p>\n
witness was holding a torch. He also found that the recovery of the <\/p>\n
torch from the spot was doubtful. It was also noted that the torch was <\/p>\n
broken and PW1 did not say as to how the torch was broken. The Trial <\/p>\n
Court doubted the version of PW1 because no explanation was given as to <\/p>\n
how his shirt was torn and this indicated that there was some violence. <\/p>\n
The Trial Court noted that PW1 did not specifically say as to why PWs 3 <\/p>\n
and 4 declined to take the dead body of deceased and PW1 to a different <\/p>\n
place, though PWs 3 and 4 gave details in Court.  Another circumstance <\/p>\n
to doubt the version of PW1 was that there were several injuries on the <\/p>\n
body of the deceased, and the PW1, while PW1 stated that one blow each <\/p>\n
was given to the deceased and to him. With these findings the Trial <\/p>\n
Court found the accused persons not guilty and they were acquitted.  In <\/p>\n
appeal, the High Court found that each of the reasons given by the <\/p>\n
Trial Court suffered from vulnerability. The High Court found that <\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 was credible and cogent. So far as injuries on the <\/p>\n
deceased and PW1 are concerned, it was noted that doctor had stated <\/p>\n
that several injuries were possible because of one blow.  In case of <\/p>\n
PW1 one injury related to complaint of pain on the leg. When PW1 had <\/p>\n
stated specifically about the torch in Exhibit P-1, the mere fact that <\/p>\n
there was non-mention of moonlight was not good enough to discard the <\/p>\n
evidence as unreliable.  Similarly, even if torch was broken it was not <\/p>\n
necessary for PW1 to explain how it was broken. Evidence was that he <\/p>\n
had fallen down after receiving the blow on the head. It was also <\/p>\n
noticed that PW2-doctor’s evidence did not affect the credibility of <\/p>\n
prosecution evidence that PW1 was taken to the spot, in view of what <\/p>\n
had been indicated by the doctor in his evidence and as borne out by <\/p>\n
documents. Merely because PW1 had not indicated in Exhibit P-1 as to <\/p>\n
why PWs 3 and 4 did not want to take deceased and PW1 in their <\/p>\n
respective taxies that cannot be considered to be a vital omission.  In <\/p>\n
fact evidence of PWs 3 and 4 clearly establish the role of accused <\/p>\n
persons and the veracity of prosecution version. With these findings <\/p>\n
accused Augustine Saldanha was convicted and sentenced by Additional <\/p>\n
Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC as aforesaid.  Similarly, <\/p>\n
considering the nature of the injuries sustained by PW1, accused Rocky <\/p>\n
Saldanha was sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment as noted above <\/p>\n
for offences punishable under Section 324 IPC.  <\/p>\n
In support of the appeal learned counsel has submitted that the <\/p>\n
Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and the High Court <\/p>\n
was not justified in reversing the findings. It was quite improbable <\/p>\n
that PW1 identified the accused persons in the dark night.  The <\/p>\n
injuries found on the body of the deceased and PW1 do not tally with <\/p>\n
the version as stated by PW1 in his evidence.\n<\/p>\n
The evidence of PW1 and PW8 suffers from many infirmities. For <\/p>\n
example, as to how PW1 who was in unconscious condition could be able <\/p>\n
to give a report without any medical aid, is not explained. Residually, <\/p>\n
it was argued that one blow was given in the dark night and it would <\/p>\n
rule out application of Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that the <\/p>\n
High Court has analysed the evidence in detail and found the acquittal <\/p>\n
not justified. The circumstances which weighed the Trial Court are not <\/p>\n
germane and the High Court has rightly held that the conclusions were <\/p>\n
erroneous. The analysis made by the High Court suffers from no <\/p>\n
infirmity and the conclusions are, therefore, in order. Minor and <\/p>\n
trifle circumstances were magnified by the Trial Court as rightly <\/p>\n
observed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
We find that the High Court has analysed the evidence in great <\/p>\n
detail, and concluded that Trial Court’s conclusions were fallacious <\/p>\n
and based on magnification of trifle and unimportant materials, which <\/p>\n
in no way affected credibility of prosecution version.  We find no <\/p>\n
deficiency in view taken by High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that <\/p>\n
Augustine Saldanha and Rocky Saldanha were responsible for the death <\/p>\n
and injury to the deceased and PW1 respectively.  <\/p>\n
The only other point which needs to be considered is whether <\/p>\n
Section 302 IPC has been rightly made applicable.    <\/p>\n
This brings us to the crucial question as to which was the <\/p>\n
appropriate provision to be applied.  In the scheme of the IPC culpable <\/p>\n
homicide is genus and ‘murder’ its specie.  All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable <\/p>\n
homicide’ but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, ‘culpable homicide’ <\/p>\n
sans ‘special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not <\/p>\n
amounting to murder’.  For the purpose of fixing punishment, <\/p>\n
proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC <\/p>\n
practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide.  The first <\/p>\n
is, what may be called, ‘culpable homicide of the first degree’.  This <\/p>\n
is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section <\/p>\n
300 as ‘murder’.  The second may be termed as ‘culpable homicide of the <\/p>\n
second degree’.  This is punishable under the first part of Section <\/p>\n
304.  Then, there is ‘culpable homicide of the third degree’.  This is <\/p>\n
the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it <\/p>\n
is, also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three <\/p>\n
grades.  Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the <\/p>\n
second part of Section 304.\n<\/p>\n
The academic distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide <\/p>\n
not amounting to murder’ has always vexed the Courts.  The confusion is <\/p>\n
caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the <\/p>\n
terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be <\/p>\n
drawn into minute abstractions.  The safest way of approach to the <\/p>\n
interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep <\/p>\n
in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and <\/p>\n
300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating <\/p>\n
the points of distinction between the two offences.<\/p>\n
\t\tSection 299\t\t\t\t\t\tSection <\/p>\n
300<\/span><\/p>\n
A person commits culpable homicide\t\tSubject to certain <\/p>\n
exceptions<\/p>\n
if the act by which the death is\t\tculpable homicide is <\/p>\n
murder  caused is done \u2013\t\t\t\t\tif the act by <\/p>\n
which the <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdeath is caused is done –<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\nINTENTION\n\n\n\n(a) with the intention of causing  \t\t(1) with the \n\nintention of \n\n    death; or\t\t\t\t\tcausing death; or\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
(b) with the intention of causing \t\t(2) with the <\/p>\n
intention of <\/p>\n
    such bodily injury as is likely  \tcausing such <\/p>\n
bodily injury <\/p>\n
\t to cause death; or \t\t\t\tas the offender <\/p>\n
knows to be<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tlikely to cause the <\/p>\n
death of<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe person to whom the <\/p>\n
harm <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tis caused; or<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(3) With the intention <\/p>\n
of <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcausing bodily injury <\/p>\n
to any<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tperson and the bodily <\/p>\n
injury<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tintended to be <\/p>\n
inflicted <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tis sufficient in the <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tordinary course of <\/p>\n
nature<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tto cause death; or<\/p>\n
KNOWLEDGE<\/p>\n
****<\/p>\n
(c) with the knowledge that the act      (4) with the <\/p>\n
knowledge that<\/p>\n
\t is likely to cause death.\t\t\tthe act is so <\/p>\n
imminently<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdangerous that it must <\/p>\n
in all<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tprobability cause death <\/p>\n
or<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsuch bodily injury as is <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tlikely to cause death, <\/p>\n
and <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twithout any excuse for <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tincurring the risk of <\/p>\n
causing<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdeath or such injury as <\/p>\n
is<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tmentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of <\/p>\n
Section 300.  The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite <\/p>\n
under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding <\/p>\n
the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of <\/p>\n
health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, <\/p>\n
notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way <\/p>\n
of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or <\/p>\n
condition.  It is noteworthy that the ‘intention to cause death’ is not <\/p>\n
an essential requirement of clause (2).  Only the intention of causing <\/p>\n
the bodily injury coupled with the offender’s knowledge of the <\/p>\n
likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, <\/p>\n
is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause.  <\/p>\n
This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to <\/p>\n
Section 300.\n<\/p>\n
Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge <\/p>\n
on the part of the offender.  Instances of cases falling under clause <\/p>\n
(2) of Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a fist <\/p>\n
blow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an <\/p>\n
enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is <\/p>\n
likely to cause death of that particular person as a result of the <\/p>\n
rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the <\/p>\n
case may be.  If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease <\/p>\n
or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or <\/p>\n
bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause <\/p>\n
death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused <\/p>\n
the death, was intentionally given.  In clause (3) of Section 300, <\/p>\n
instead of the words ‘likely to cause death’ occurring in the <\/p>\n
corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words “sufficient in the <\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature” have been used.  Obviously, the distinction <\/p>\n
lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury <\/p>\n
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.  The <\/p>\n
distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in <\/p>\n
miscarriage of justice.  The difference between clause (b) of Section <\/p>\n
299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability <\/p>\n
of death resulting from the intended bodily injury.  To put it more <\/p>\n
broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines <\/p>\n
whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest <\/p>\n
degree.  The word ‘likely’ in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the <\/p>\n
sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility.  The words <\/p>\n
“bodily injury…….sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to <\/p>\n
cause death” mean that death will be the “most probable” result of the <\/p>\n
injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature.<\/p>\n
For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that the <\/p>\n
offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the <\/p>\n
intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the <\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature.  Rajwant and Anr.  v. State of Kerala, (AIR <\/p>\n
1966 SC 1874) is an apt illustration of this point.<\/p>\n
In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 465), Vivian <\/p>\n
Bose, J. speaking for the Court, explained the meaning and scope of <\/p>\n
clause (3). It was observed that the prosecution must prove the <\/p>\n
following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300, <\/p>\n
“thirdly”.  First, it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily <\/p>\n
injury is present; secondly the nature of the injury must be proved.  <\/p>\n
These are purely objective investigations.  Thirdly, It must be proved <\/p>\n
that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is <\/p>\n
to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other <\/p>\n
kind of injury was intended.  Once these three elements are proved to <\/p>\n
be present, the enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must be <\/p>\n
proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three <\/p>\n
elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary <\/p>\n
course of nature.  This part of the enquiry is purely objective and <\/p>\n
inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.<\/p>\n
The ingredients of clause “Thirdly” of Section 300, IPC were <\/p>\n
brought out by the illustrious Judge in his terse language as follows:<\/p>\n
“To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the <\/p>\n
following facts before it can bring a case under <\/p>\n
Section 300, “thirdly”.\n<\/p>\n
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a <\/p>\n
bodily injury is present.\n<\/p>\n
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved.  <\/p>\n
These are purely objective investigations.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an <\/p>\n
intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, <\/p>\n
that is to say that it was not accidental or <\/p>\n
unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was <\/p>\n
intended.\n<\/p>\n
Once these three elements are proved to be present, <\/p>\n
the enquiry proceeds further and,<\/p>\n
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the <\/p>\n
type just described made up of the three elements set <\/p>\n
out above is sufficient to cause death in the <\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature.  This part of the enquiry <\/p>\n
is purely objective and inferential and has nothing <\/p>\n
to do with the intention of the offender.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge explained the third ingredient in the following <\/p>\n
words (at page 468):\n<\/p>\n
“The question is not whether the prisoner intended to <\/p>\n
inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether <\/p>\n
he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to <\/p>\n
be present.  If he can show that he did not, or if <\/p>\n
the totality of the circumstances justify such an <\/p>\n
inference, then of course, the intent that the <\/p>\n
section requires is not proved.  But if there is <\/p>\n
nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the <\/p>\n
appellant inflicted it, the only possible inference <\/p>\n
is that he intended to inflict it. Whether he knew of <\/p>\n
its seriousness or intended serious consequences, is <\/p>\n
neither here or there.  The question, so far as the <\/p>\n
intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to <\/p>\n
kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree <\/p>\n
of seriousness but whether he intended to inflict the <\/p>\n
injury in question and once the existence of the <\/p>\n
injury is proved the intention to cause it will be <\/p>\n
presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances <\/p>\n
warrant an opposite conclusion.”\n<\/p>\n
These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus <\/p>\n
classicus.  The test laid down by Virsa Singh’s case (supra) for the <\/p>\n
applicability of clause “Thirdly” is now ingrained in our legal system <\/p>\n
and has become part of the rule of law.  Under clause thirdly of <\/p>\n
Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if both the following <\/p>\n
conditions are satisfied: i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is <\/p>\n
done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention <\/p>\n
of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be <\/p>\n
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause <\/p>\n
death.  It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that <\/p>\n
particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was <\/p>\n
sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury found to be present <\/p>\n
was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.<\/p>\n
Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh’s case, even <\/p>\n
if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily <\/p>\n
injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and <\/p>\n
did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be <\/p>\n
murder.  Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out <\/p>\n
this point.\n<\/p>\n
Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300 both <\/p>\n
require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death.  It is <\/p>\n
not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate much on the <\/p>\n
distinction between these corresponding clauses. It will be sufficient <\/p>\n
to say that clause (4) of Section 300 would be applicable where the <\/p>\n
knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or <\/p>\n
persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons <\/p>\n
\u2013 being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a <\/p>\n
practical certainty.  Such knowledge on the part of the offender must <\/p>\n
be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed <\/p>\n
by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing <\/p>\n
death or such injury as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron <\/p>\n
imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task <\/p>\n
of the Court.  But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the <\/p>\n
second and the third stages so telescoped into each other, that it may <\/p>\n
not be convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved <\/p>\n
in the second and third stages.\n<\/p>\n
The position was illuminatingly highlighted by this Court in <\/p>\n
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr.<\/a> (1976 (4) SCC <\/p>\n
382) and recently in Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors.   v. State of <\/p>\n
Andhra Pradesh (JT<\/a> 2002 (6) SC 274).\n<\/p>\n
Undisputedly the incident took place in a dark night when <\/p>\n
visibility was poor but identification was possible because the victims <\/p>\n
of the assailants were known to each other.  Therefore, there is <\/p>\n
nothing wrong in PW1 identifying the accused persons. The fact remains <\/p>\n
that in the dark night obviously one cannot move without a torch or <\/p>\n
some other lighted object. In fact, in Exhibit P-1 also there is <\/p>\n
mention of a torch.\n<\/p>\n
It needs to be noted that only one blow was given in the dark <\/p>\n
night. Though it cannot be said as a rule of universal application that <\/p>\n
whenever one blow is given application of Section 302 IPC will be ruled <\/p>\n
out and that even a single blow delivered with a heavy or dangerous <\/p>\n
weapon on a vital part of the body would make the offence a murder. On <\/p>\n
the peculiar facts found in the present case, we feel that clause <\/p>\n
‘Thirdly’ of Section 300 cannot be applied. The blow was said to have <\/p>\n
been delivered with a stick and in a pitch dark night of time in the <\/p>\n
forest surroundings of the area where it occurred. It could not <\/p>\n
reasonably be stated with any certainty that the accused chose that <\/p>\n
vital part of the body to inflict the injury and that the blow was <\/p>\n
aimed without any of such specific intention could have landed on the <\/p>\n
head due to so many other circumstances, than due to any positive <\/p>\n
intention also. We, therefore, alter the conviction of appellant <\/p>\n
Augustine Saldanha from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II. <\/p>\n
Custodial sentence of eight years would meet ends of justice. His <\/p>\n
appeal is accordingly allowed to the indicated extent. So far as <\/p>\n
appellant Rocky Saldanha is concerned, in view of the detailed analysis <\/p>\n
made by the High Court, we do not find any interference with his <\/p>\n
conviction or the sentence imposed. His appeal is dismissed.  The <\/p>\n
accused persons who are on bail, are directed to surrender to custody <\/p>\n
to serve remainder of their sentences.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 854 of 1996 PETITIONER: Augustine Saldanha RESPONDENT: Vs. State of Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/08\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAugustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-08T10:45:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-08T10:45:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3638,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-08T10:45:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-08T10:45:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-08T10:45:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003"},"wordCount":3638,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003","name":"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-08T10:45:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augustine-saldanha-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-26-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Augustine Saldanha vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195752","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}