{"id":56603,"date":"1994-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994"},"modified":"2017-05-28T08:02:20","modified_gmt":"2017-05-28T02:32:20","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC  (1) 326, \t  JT 1994 (7)\t559<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K J Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVEDANAYAGAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/11\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  (1) 326\t  JT 1994 (7)\t559\n 1994 SCALE  (4)1038\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nK.JAYACHANDRA  REDDY,  J.-  The\t question  that\t arises\t for<br \/>\nconsideration in this appeal filed by the State of Karnataka<br \/>\nis whether the offence committed by the respondent, the sole<br \/>\naccused\t in  the case, amounts to  murder  punishable  under<br \/>\nSection\t 302  IPC  or  culpable\t homicide  punishable  under<br \/>\nSection 304 Part 11 IPC and whether the High Court is  right<br \/>\nin  holding  that whenever there is only single\t injury\t the<br \/>\noffence\t would be only culpable homicide though the  medical<br \/>\nevidence is to the effect that the same is necessarily fatal<br \/>\nand  sufficient\t in the ordinary course of nature  to  cause<br \/>\ndeath?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The  deceased Sugumaran, PW 1 Pooswamy and other  material<br \/>\nwitnesses  were\t all workers in Kolar Gold  Field  and\twere<br \/>\nresiding  in  a\t place called Gorgaum.\t The  house  of\t the<br \/>\naccused was about 26 feet from PW 1&#8217;s house.  The  deceased,<br \/>\nwho was son of PW 1&#8217;s sister, was living with his mother  PW<br \/>\n3,  Muniyamma  in  another  house.   The  accused  developed<br \/>\nillicit\t intimacy with Chudamani, wife of PW 1. On  9-7-1984<br \/>\nat  about 11 p.m., PW 1 saw the accused making signs to\t his<br \/>\nwife  Chudamani and seeing PW 1, he ran away.  On  13-7-1984<br \/>\nat  about  3 p.m., PW 3 and the mother of the  accused\twere<br \/>\nquarrelling near the house of PW 1. PW 1 rushed to the house<br \/>\nof  PW 3 and fetched her son, the deceased.  The accused  in<br \/>\nthe  meanwhile,\t on hearing the quarrel, entered  the  scene<br \/>\nwith a knife MO 1 in his hand and on seeing the deceased the<br \/>\naccused gave a knife blow on the left side of his chest as a<br \/>\nresult\t of   which  the  deceased  fell   down\t  and\tdied<br \/>\ninstantaneously.   PW  1 chased the accused  but  could\t not<br \/>\ncatch  him.   Thereafter he went to the police\tstation\t and<br \/>\ngave   a   report,  Ex.\t  P-1.\t PW  10\t SI  took   up\t the<br \/>\ninvestigation,\theld the inquest and sent the dead body\t for<br \/>\npostmortem.  The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, found<br \/>\none  stab  injury on the left side of the chest\t and  opined<br \/>\nthat the death was a result of the said injury to the  vital<br \/>\norgans.\t After completion of the investigation, the  charge-<br \/>\nsheet was laid.\t The accused pleaded not guilty.  The  trial<br \/>\ncourt  accepted the prosecution case and held that  a  clear<br \/>\ncase  under  Section  302 IPC is made  out  and\t accordingly<br \/>\nconvicted   the\t accused  and  sentenced  him\tto   undergo<br \/>\nimprisonment  for life.\t On appeal the High Court  confirmed<br \/>\nthe finding of the trial court namely<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">328<\/span><br \/>\nthat  it  was the accused who caused the  fatal\t injury\t but<br \/>\nrelying on the judgment of this Court in Tholan v. State  of<br \/>\nTN.  1, however, held that having regard to the\t genesis  of<br \/>\nthe  matter i.e. that there was no premeditation  and  since<br \/>\nthe  accused  inflicted only one blow with the dagger  MO  1<br \/>\nwhich  unfortunately landed on the chest, it cannot be\tsaid<br \/>\nthat  &#8220;the  accused  intended  to cause\t the  death  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased&#8221;.  The High Court also observed that on seeing\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  the accused who had already a knife in his hand  &#8221;<br \/>\ngave only one blow to Sugumaran and unfortunately it  landed<br \/>\non  the\t chest\tof  the deceased&#8221; and  that  &#8220;there  are  no<br \/>\ncircumstances placed before us to indicate that the  accused<br \/>\nwanted\tto  finish off Sugumaran or intended to\t finish\t off<br \/>\nSugumaran.   Therefore,\t under these  circumstances,  it  is<br \/>\nrather\tvery difficult to infer that the  accused  inflicted<br \/>\nthe  blow on the chest of the deceased with an intention  to<br \/>\nbring  about his death&#8221;.  The High Court further  held\tthat<br \/>\n&#8220;[t]herefore, according to the principle laid down in Tholan<br \/>\ncase1,\twe think that the offence, however,  unfortunate  it<br \/>\nmay be, would come down to Section 304 Part II IPC&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.It  is  the  above  finding of  the  High  Court  that  is<br \/>\nchallenged  in\tthis appeal by the State.  Both\t the  courts<br \/>\nbelow have held that on seeing the deceased, Sugumaran,\t the<br \/>\naccused\t who was armed with a dagger MO 1, plunged  it\tinto<br \/>\nthe  left side of the chest of the deceased as a  result  of<br \/>\nwhich  he died instantaneously.\t The doctor,  who  conducted<br \/>\nthe postmortem, noted the following injury:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;(a)  a  punctured wound 2&#8243; by 1\/2&#8243;  over\t the<br \/>\n\t      chest  on\t the left side over the\t 2nd  costal<br \/>\n\t      cartilage\t 1&#8221;  from the  mid-sternum  situated<br \/>\n\t      obliquely.   It has clean cut edges and  sharp<br \/>\n\t      angles  at both the extremes.  Edges are\tover<br \/>\n\t      cut.   The  edges\t of  the  wound\t clean\t not<br \/>\n\t      bruised.\t On probing the wound with  a  blunt<br \/>\n\t      probe  it\t had  freely  entered  the  thoracic<br \/>\n\t      cavity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      On dissection it is noticed that the wound had<br \/>\n\t      passed  through  the  substance  (T)  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      sternum, 2nd costal cartilage anterior  border<br \/>\n\t      of the lower lobe of the left lung and entered<br \/>\n\t      the  chamber of the right ventricle  2&#8243;  above<br \/>\n\t      the &#8230; (not clear) of the heart.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Both the courts below have clearly noted that the injury was<br \/>\na very serious one which brought about instant death.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe  above  description, it can be seen that  the  blow\t was<br \/>\naimed  at the chest and the injury was inflicted with  great<br \/>\nforce  with a deadly weapon on the vital part.\t It  entered<br \/>\nthe  thoracic  cavity, passed through the substance  of\t the<br \/>\nsternum, injured the lower lobe of the left lung and entered<br \/>\nthe chamber of the right ventricle.  It is not a case  where<br \/>\nthere was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased  or<br \/>\nwhere  they  grappled with each other so that it  cannot  be<br \/>\ndefinitely  said  that\tthe  accused aimed  the\t blow  at  a<br \/>\nparticular part of the body and therefore intended to  cause<br \/>\nthat  particular  injury which was objectively found  to  be<br \/>\nsufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause  death.<br \/>\nNo  doubt  there may be scope to contend that there  was  no<br \/>\npremeditation and therefore clause Istly of Section 300\t IPC<br \/>\nnamely that the accused intended to cause death, is<br \/>\n1 (1984) 2 SCC 133: 1984 SCC (Cri) 164: AIR 1984 SC 759<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">329<\/span><br \/>\nnot attracted.\tBut the important question is whether clause<br \/>\n3rdly of Section 300 IPC is attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The  scope of clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC has\tbeen<br \/>\nthe subject matter of various decisions of this Court.\t The<br \/>\ndecision in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab2, has  throughout<br \/>\nbeen followed in a number of cases by all the High Courts as<br \/>\nwell as the Supreme Court.  In all these cases the  approach<br \/>\nhas  been  to  find out whether the  ingredient\t namely\t the<br \/>\nintention to cause the particular injury was present or not?<br \/>\nIf such an intention to cause that particular injury is made<br \/>\nout  and  if  the injury is found to be\t sufficient  in\t the<br \/>\nordinary course of nature to cause death, then clause  3rdly<br \/>\nof Section 300 IPC is attracted.  Analysing clause 3rdly and<br \/>\nas to what the prosecution must prove, it was held in  Virsa<br \/>\nSingh case2 as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;First, it must establish, quite\tobjectively,<br \/>\n\t      that a bodily injury is present;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Secondly,\t the  nature of the injury  must  be<br \/>\n\t      proved;\t These\t  are\t purely\t   objective<br \/>\n\t      investigations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Thirdly,\tit must be proved that there was  an<br \/>\n\t      intention\t to inflict that  particular  bodily<br \/>\n\t      injury,  that  is\t to say,  that\tit  was\t not<br \/>\n\t      accidental  or  unintentional,  or  that\tsome<br \/>\n\t      other kind of injury was intended..<br \/>\n\t      Once  these  three elements are proved  to  be<br \/>\n\t      present, the enquiry proceeds further and,<br \/>\n\t      Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of<br \/>\n\t      the  type just described made up of the  three<br \/>\n\t      elements set out above is sufficient to  cause<br \/>\n\t      death in the ordinary course of nature.\tThis<br \/>\n\t      part  of the enquiry is purely  objective\t and<br \/>\n\t      inferential  and\thas nothing to do  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      intention of the offender&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      It was further observed as under:<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;If  they inflict injuries of that kind,\tthey<br \/>\n\t      must face the consequences; and they can\tonly<br \/>\n\t      escape  if  it  can be  shown,  or  reasonably<br \/>\n\t      deduced  that  the injury\t was  accidental  or<br \/>\n\t      otherwise unintentional.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(emphasis supplied)<br \/>\nThus it is clear that ingredient of clause 3rdly is not\t the<br \/>\nintention  to  cause  death  but  on  the  other  hand\t the<br \/>\ningredient  to\tbe  proved is the  intention  to  cause\t the<br \/>\nparticular  injury  that was present.  It is  fallacious  to<br \/>\ncontend\t that wherever there is a single injury only a\tcase<br \/>\nof  culpable  homicide\tis made out  irrespective  of  other<br \/>\ncircumstances.\tIn Emperor v. Sardarkhan Jaridkhan3, it\t was<br \/>\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Where death is caused by a single blow, it is<br \/>\n\t      always  much more difficult to  be  absolutely<br \/>\n\t      certain  what  degree  of\t bodily\t injury\t the<br \/>\n\t\t\t    offender intended.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Commenting upon this observation Justice Bose in Virsa Singh<br \/>\ncase2 held thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>2 1958 SCR 1495 : AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 8 1 8<br \/>\n3 ILR (1 917) 41 Bom 27: 18 Bom LR 793<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">330<\/span><br \/>\n\t      &#8220;With due respect to the learned Judge he\t has<br \/>\n\t      linked   up  the\tintent\trequired  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      seriousness  of  the injury, and that,  as  we<br \/>\n\t      have shown, is not what the section  requires.<br \/>\n\t      The   two\t matters  are  quite  separate\t and<br \/>\n\t      distinct,\t though the evidence about them\t may<br \/>\n\t      sometimes overlap.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>As to how the intention is to be inferred even in a case  of<br \/>\nsingle injury, Justice Bose further held as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The  question  is not  whether  the  prisoner<br \/>\n\t      intended\tto  inflict a serious  injury  or  a<br \/>\n\t      trivial one but whether he intended to inflict<br \/>\n\t      the  injury that is proved to be present.\t  If<br \/>\n\t      he  can  show  that  he did  not,\t or  if\t the<br \/>\n\t      totality of the circumstances justify such  an<br \/>\n\t      inference,  then, of course, the\tintent\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the  section requires is not proved.   But  if<br \/>\n\t      there  is\t nothing beyond the injury  and\t the<br \/>\n\t      fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only<br \/>\n\t      possible\tinference  is that  he\tintended  to<br \/>\n\t      inflict\tit.    Whether\the   knew   of\t its<br \/>\n\t      seriousness, or intended serious consequences,<br \/>\n\t      is  neither here nor there. The  question,  so<br \/>\n\t      far  as  the intention is\t concerned,  is\t not<br \/>\n\t      whether he intended to kill, or to inflict  an<br \/>\n\t      injury of a particular degree of\tseriousness,<br \/>\n\t      but whether he intended to inflict the  injury<br \/>\n\t      in  question;  and once the existence  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      injury  is  proved the intention to  cause  it<br \/>\n\t      will  be presumed unless the evidence  or\t the<br \/>\n\t      circumstances warrant an opposite\t conclusion.<br \/>\n\t      But  whether the intention is there or not  is<br \/>\n\t      one  of fact and not one of law.\tWhether\t the<br \/>\n\t      wound is serious or otherwise, and if serious,<br \/>\n\t      how   serious,  is  a  totally  separate\t and<br \/>\n\t      distinct\tquestion and has nothing to do\twith<br \/>\n\t      the question whether the prisoner intended  to<br \/>\n\t      inflict the injury in question.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      It  is true that in a given case\tthe  enquiry<br \/>\n\t      may  be linked up with the seriousness of\t the<br \/>\n\t      injury.  For example, if it can be proved,  or<br \/>\n\t      if  the totality of the circumstances  justify<br \/>\n\t      an inference, that the prisoner only  intended<br \/>\n\t      a superficial scratch and that by accident his<br \/>\n\t      victim stumbled and fell on the sword or spear<br \/>\n\t      that  was used, then of course the offence  is<br \/>\n\t      not  murder.   But  that is  not\tbecause\t the<br \/>\n\t      prisoner\tdid  not intend the injury  that  he<br \/>\n\t      intended\tto  inflict to be as serious  as  it<br \/>\n\t\t\t    turned out to be but because he did not intend<br \/>\n\t      to inflict the injury in question at all.\t His<br \/>\n\t      intention in such a case would be to inflict a<br \/>\n\t      totally  different injury.  The difference  is<br \/>\n\t      not one of law but one of fact.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t\t\t (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      5.  This\tquestion  was  again  considered  in<br \/>\n\t      Jagrup  Singh v. State of Haryana4 by a  Bench<br \/>\n\t      of this Court consisting of Justice D.A. Desai<br \/>\n\t      and  Justice A.P. Sen and following the  ratio<br \/>\n\t      laid down in Virsa Singh case2 it was held  as<br \/>\n\t      under: (SCC pp. 619-620, para 6)<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;There  is no justification for the  assertion<br \/>\n\t      that the giving of a solitary blow on a  vital<br \/>\n\t      part  of\tthe body resulting  the\t death\tmust<br \/>\n\t      always  necessarily  reduce  the\toffence\t  to<br \/>\n\t      culpable\thomicide  not  amounting  to  murder<br \/>\n\t      punishable  under Section 304 Part II  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Code.   If a man deliberately strikes  another<br \/>\n\t      on  the  head with a heavy log of wood  or  an<br \/>\n\t      iron  rod\t or even a lathi so as\tto  cause  a<br \/>\n\t      fracture of the skull, he must, in<br \/>\n\t      4 (1981) 3 SCC 616: 1981 SCC (Cri) 768<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      331<\/span><br \/>\n\t      the  absence of any  circumstances  negativing<br \/>\n\t      the presumption, be deemed to have intended to<br \/>\n\t      cause  the death of the victim or such  bodily<br \/>\n\t      injury  as is sufficient to cause death.\t The<br \/>\n\t      whole  thing  depends upon  the  intention  to<br \/>\n\t      cause  death, and the case may be\t covered  by<br \/>\n\t      either  clause  Istly or\tclause\t3rdly.\t The<br \/>\n\t      nature of intention must be gathered from\t the<br \/>\n\t      kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit,<br \/>\n\t      the   amount   of\t force\temployed   and\t the<br \/>\n\t      circumstances   attendant\t upon  the   death.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      (emphasis supplied)<br \/>\nTherefore  there is no legal basis whatsoever for  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  to hold that since the respondent-accused  gave\tonly<br \/>\none  blow,  though found to be sufficient  in  the  ordinary<br \/>\ncourse of nature to cause death, clause 3rdly of Section 300<br \/>\nis not attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   In\t Tholan case1 as well as other cases relied upon  by<br \/>\nthe  learned counsel for the defence, it was found that\t the<br \/>\ngenesis\t of the occurrence was such that there was a  sudden<br \/>\nquarrel,  intervention or grappling or fight which  threw  a<br \/>\ndoubt  about  the necessary ingredient namely  intention  to<br \/>\ncause that particular injury being there.  In Jai Prakash v.<br \/>\nState  (Delhi Admn.)5 all the cases including  Tholan  case1<br \/>\nhave  been  considered in the light of the  principles\tlaid<br \/>\ndown in Virsa Singh case2 and ultimately it was concluded as<br \/>\nunder:\t  (SCC pp. 46-47, para 18)<br \/>\n\t      &#8221; In all these cases, injury by a single\tblow<br \/>\n\t      was  found  to be sufficient in  the  ordinary<br \/>\n\t      course of nature to cause death.\tThe  Supreme<br \/>\n\t      Court    took    into    consideration\t the<br \/>\n\t      circumstances   such   as\t  sudden    quarrel,<br \/>\n\t\t\t    grappling  etc.  as\t mentioned  above  only\t t<br \/>\no<br \/>\n\t      assess  the state of mind namely\twhether\t the<br \/>\n\t      accused  had the necessary intention to  cause<br \/>\n\t      that  particular\tinjury i.e. to say  that  he<br \/>\n\t      desired expressly that such injury only should<br \/>\n\t      be the result.  It is held in all these  cases<br \/>\n\t      that there was no such intention to cause that<br \/>\n\t      particular  injury as in those  circumstances,<br \/>\n\t      the accused could have been barely aware\ti.e.<br \/>\n\t      only had knowledge of the consequences.  These<br \/>\n\t      circumstances   under  which   the   appellant<br \/>\n\t      happened\tto inflict the injury it is felt  or<br \/>\n\t      at  least\t a doubt arose that all\t his  mental<br \/>\n\t      faculties\t could\tnot have been roused  as  to<br \/>\n\t      form  an intention to achieve  the  particular<br \/>\n\t      result.\tWe  may point out that\twe  are\t not<br \/>\n\t      concerned with the intention to cause death in<br \/>\n\t      which  case  it will be a\t murder\t simplicitor<br \/>\n\t      unless   exception  is  attracted.    We\t are<br \/>\n\t      concerned\t  under\t  clause  3rdly\t  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      intention\t to  cause  that  particular  injury<br \/>\n\t      which  is a subjective inquiry and  when\tonce<br \/>\n\t      such  intention  is  established\tand  if\t the<br \/>\n\t      intended\tinjury\tis found objectively  to  be<br \/>\n\t      sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to<br \/>\n\t      cause death, clause 3rdly is attracted and  it<br \/>\n\t      would be murder, unless one    of\t\t the<br \/>\n\t      exceptions to Section 300 is attracted.  If on<br \/>\n\t      the other hand this ingredient of\t &#8216;intention&#8217;<br \/>\n\t      is  not established or if a  reasonable  doubt<br \/>\n\t      arises  in this regard then only it  would  be<br \/>\n\t      reasonable  to infer that clause 3rdly is\t not<br \/>\n\t      attracted\t  and  that  the  accused  must\t  be<br \/>\n\t      attributed  knowledge that in  inflicting\t the<br \/>\n\t      injury  he was likely to cause death in  which<br \/>\n\t      case it will be\t   culpable\t    homicide<br \/>\n\t      punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.&#8221;<br \/>\n5 (1991) 2 SCC 32: 1991 SCC (Cri) 299 : JT (1991) 1 SC 288<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">332<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   In\t the instant case, the accused had illicit  intimacy<br \/>\nwith  the wife of PW 1. From this it can be said that  there<br \/>\nwas hostility between PW 1 and the accused.  On the  fateful<br \/>\nday  PW 3, the mother of the deceased and the mother of\t the<br \/>\naccused\t were quarrelling with each other, and even by\tthen<br \/>\nthe accused hearing the quarrel came out of his house  armed<br \/>\nwith  a\t dagger.   Seeing this PW 1  went  and\tbrought\t the<br \/>\ndeceased.  Then the accused shouted that: &#8220;You have  defamed<br \/>\nme.   I would not leave you.  I will kill.&#8221; Saying  this  he<br \/>\nstabbed\t on the left side of the chest of the  deceased\t and<br \/>\nthe  deceased  fell down and died  instantaneously.   It  is<br \/>\nimportant  to  note that there was neither a quarrel  nor  a<br \/>\nfight  between\tthe  deceased and the  accused.\t  The  words<br \/>\nuttered by the accused against the deceased followed by\t the<br \/>\nstabbing  with the dagger on the left side of the  chest  of<br \/>\nthe  deceased,\twould clearly indicate that he\tintended  to<br \/>\ncause that particular injury which was objectively found  to<br \/>\nbe  sufficient\tin the ordinary course of  nature  to  cause<br \/>\ndeath.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.From\tall  the above facts, there is no  doubt  whatsoever<br \/>\nthat the accused intended to cause that particular injury on<br \/>\nthe chest which necessarily proved fatal.  Therefore  clause<br \/>\n3rdly  of  Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  erred in holding that &#8220;the accused did not intend  to<br \/>\ncause  his  death  by inflicting the  injury  on  the  chest<br \/>\nbecause there was no premeditation and therefore the offence<br \/>\nwould be culpable homicide&#8221;.  This view of the High Court is<br \/>\nnot  correct and as discussed above clause 3rdly of  Section<br \/>\n300 IPC is clearly attracted.  For all these reasons we\t set<br \/>\naside  the  judgment  of  the High  Court  and\trestore\t the<br \/>\njudgment  of  the trial court convicting the  accused  under<br \/>\nSection\t 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo\timprisonment<br \/>\nfor life.  Accordingly the appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">333<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 326, JT 1994 (7) 559 Author: K J Reddy Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RESPONDENT: VEDANAYAGAM DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/11\/1994 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) PUNCHHI, M.M. CITATION: [&hellip;]<\/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-56603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-28T02:32:20+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T02:32:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994\"},\"wordCount\":2856,\"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\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T02:32:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-28T02:32:20+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994","datePublished":"1994-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T02:32:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994"},"wordCount":2856,"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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T02:32:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-vedanayagam-on-23-november-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Vedanayagam on 23 November, 1994"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/56603","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=56603"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56603\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}