Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

Subject –Indian Penal Code-I

FINAL DRAFT

“Case Comment: State of Andhra Pradesh v R. Punnaya”

SUBMITTED BY:
Vinay Sheel
4th Semester
Roll No-166, Section-B

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Mr. Malay Pandey
Asstt. Prof. in Law

Dr. RMLNLU, LUCKNOW

TITLE OF THE PROJECT

Case comment on State of Andhra Pradesh v R. Punnaya 1977 CrLJ 1 (SC)

NAME OF THE CASE

State of Andhra Pradesh v R. Punnaya 1977 CrLJ 1 (SC)

EQUIVALENT CITATION OF THE CASE

(1976) 4 SCC 382, AIR 1977 SC 45

NAME OF THE PARTIES

 APPELANT
State of Andhra Pradesh
 RESPONDENT
Rayavarapu Punnayya and another

BENCH STRENGTH

The bench constituted in this case was Division Bench and the names of the honorable judges
were R.S Sarkaria and S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, JJ.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the village of Rompicheria, there were three factions belonging to three major communities,
namely, the Reddys, the Kammas and the Bhatrajus. Rayavarapu, Chopparapu Subbareddi and
Sarikonda Kotamraju were the leaders of the three factions the Reddys, the Kammas and the
Bhatrajus. In politics, Reddys were supporting the Congress and the Kammas were supporting
the Swatantra Party. There was a bad blood between Reddys and Kammas because which there
arose several incidents where the warring factions were involved, because of which there was a
punitive police force was stationed in the village from 1966 to 1967.

The Bhatrajus decided to defend themselves from the warring parties in a meeting held at the
deceased person’s house. There was a member of Bhatrajus, PW1 had a cattle shed, whose
pathway was blocked by the other party. The deceased took the PW1 to the Police Station
Nekarikal and got a report lodged there. On July 22, 1968 the Sub-Inspector of the police visited
the village and inspected the disputed wall in the presence of the parties. He directed the parties
to present themselves at the police station the next morning so as to effectuate a compromise
between the parties.

Another case was reported against the Accused 2 and 3 in respect of offences under Section 323,
324 and 325 of the Indian penal Code, which was pending before a Magistrate at Narasaraopet
whose hearing was fixed in that case was July 23, 1968. On the morning of July 23, 1968 the
deceased and PW1 and PW2 boarded the bus to go to police station. Some minutes later the
accused 1 to 5 (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) also boarded the same bus to reach the hearing of the
aforesaid case. At around 7:30 a.m. got down the bus. The deceased and PW1 went towards a
Choultry run by PW4, while PW2 went on a roadside to ease himself. A1 and A2 went to a
nearby Coffee Hotel and picked up heavy sticks and headed towards the Choultry. On seeing
this, PW1 ran away but the deceased, 55 years of age, was stopped and his and arms were
pounded and was beaten brutally. When asked by the passerby why was he beaten so brutally
like a buffalo. He was retorted that it was none of his business to know. The accused then threw
their sticks on the spot and boarded another vehicle and went away. The occurrence was
witnessed by 7 witnesses, PW1 to 7. PW 8 took the deceased to Narasaraopet Hospital in a
tempo car at about 8:45 a.m., Dr. Kinda Reddy examined him and found 19 injuries out of which
atleast 9 were fatal. Finding the condition of the deceased to be serious, he sent the information
to the Judicial Magistrate for getting his dying declaration. He was immediately shifted to the
Guntur Hospital where he was examined and given medical aid. But he could not sustain the
injuries and died at 4:40 a.m. on July 24, 1968. The Autopsy conducted by Dr. Sarojini (PW12)
revealed that the injuries found on the deceased were cumulatively sufficient to cause death. The
cause of the death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from multiple injuries.

A1 and A2 were convicted under Section 302 as well as Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC
and were sentenced to imprisonment of life by the trial court. The convicts appealed and the
High Court altered the conviction to Under Section 304, Part II, and IPC and reduced the
sentence to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court, the state
appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave petition. A1 (Rayavarapu) died during the
pendency of the case. This was not contradicted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State;
however the appeal survived against A2.

LAW APPLIED

In this particular case of State of Andhra Pradesh v R. Punnaya, Sections 299 and 300 have been
in heated discussion and Section 300 has been applied along with Section 302. Section 302 with
Section 34 have also been mentioned and applied in this case. Section 304, 323, 324 and 325 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 are also dealt by this case.
STATUTE APPLIED

Indian Penal Code (1860) and Code of Criminal Procedure (1973)

CASES REFERRED

 Kalarimadathil Unni v State of Kerala

1966 Indlaw SC 91, AIR 1966 SC 1874, 1966 (72) CRLJ 1509, [1966] Supp S.C.R. 230
 Anda and Others v State of Rajasthan
1965 Indlaw SC 489, AIR 1966 SC 148, 1966 CRLJ 171
 Virsa Singh. v The State Of Punjab
1958 Indlaw SC 82, AIR 1958 SC 465, 1958 (64) CRLJ 818, 1958 SCJ 772, [1958] 1
S.C.R. 1495

ISSUES INVOLVED

 Whether the offence disclosed by the facts and circumstances is ‘murder’ or ‘culpable
homicide not amounting to murder’?
 What is the difference between ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ and
‘murder’?
 How to identify whether the accused committed the offence of ‘murder’ or ‘culpable
homicide not amounting to murder’?

DECISION OF THE COURT

The decision of the case was given at three levels.

Firstly, at the trial court level, wherein the trial court acquitted the accused persons of the
murder and charged them of imprisonment for life.

Secondly, at the High Court level where the High Court reversed the conviction and charged
them under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced them for 5 years rigorous imprisonment.

Though the High court altered the decision of the trial court by giving some reasons.

Thirdly, at the Supreme Court level, when the State of Andhra Pradesh was aggrieved by the
decision of the High Court, wherein, the Supreme Court Appeal made through Special leave was
allowed and the order of the Trial court was restored that the accused are guilty of murder and
sentenced them for life imprisonment.

CASE COMMENT

In the abovementioned case, there is no conflict in the question that the accused committed the
offence because there was a direct underlying connection between the act and the death of the
deceased. But the question that arises here is that whether the accused should be charged under
the offence of ‘murder’ or under ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder.’

Whether the offence disclosed by the facts and circumstances is ‘murder’ or ‘culpable
homicide not amounting to murder’?

This is an undisputed fact that A1 and A2 have led to the death of the deceased by causing fatal
injuries to him. The accused confined them by beating the deceased on his arms and legs, the
accused can be said to have no intention to cause death of the deceased. The counsel for the
appellant has contended that though the accused did not have the intention to cause death of the
deceased, the case still falls under Section 300 (3), IPC and thus the offence committed is murder
and nothing less.

As opposed to the contention made by the defense counsel and accepted by the High Court that
there was no heavy hemorrhage and the cause of death was only shock, it was established that
the best person to speak about it is Dr. Sarojini who did the autopsy on the body of the deceased.
She testified that- “The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. This
was supported by the reports which showed that the heart of the deceased was found full of
clotted blood. Again in injury no. 6, an internal fracture, the bone was visible through the wound.
Also, that he was not only treating the deceased of shock, not only by sending fluids but also
blood. PW11, the first medical officer to examine the injuries noted there was bleeding and
swelling around injury no.6. Dr. Sarojini found fracture underneath this injury, making it clear
that it was a compound fracture.” Secondly, Dr. Shastri found the life of the deceased ebbing fast
and thus took two fold actions, first, he put the patient on blood transfusion and second, he sent
an intimidation for recording his dying declaration. These facts are substantial enough to show
there was hemorrhage from some injuries involving compound fractures. According to Modi,
“Fractures are not ordinarily dangerous unless they are compound, when death may occur from
loss of blood, if big vessel is wounded by the split end of a fractured bone.” Since some of the
injuries of the deceased were compound fractures accompanied by substantial hemorrhage, it can
be said evidently that the deceased dies of both shock and hemorrhage.

Also, the High Court said that “the accused had no intention to cause death of the deceased as
they did not hit the vital parts of the body, and confined themselves with beating only the legs
and arms of the person. But this does not take out the case out of the ambit of murder.” The crux
of the matter is whether the facts established bring the case within clause (3) of Section300, this
question further narrowed down to two-fold issue:

a. Whether the bodily injuries found on the deceased were intentionally inflicted by the
accused?
b. If so, were they sufficient to cause death of the deceased?

If both the elements satisfactorily established, then the offence will be murder, and this case both
the elements were satisfactorily established as stated hereunder:

“There is therefore, no doubt in the conclusion that the offence committed by the accused was
‘murder’, though intention to cause death of the deceased has not been shown beyond doubt, but
the facts and circumstances and the proof was sufficient enough to put the accused within the
ambit of murder.”

Similar decision was held in the case of Anda v. state of Rajasthan,1 where the victim was beaten
up by several accused persons and the deceased dies of shock and Syncope due to multiple
injuries collectively sufficient to cause death of the deceased, but none of them were individually
sufficient to cause the death.

J. Hidayatullah, on the comparative distinction between Section 299 and Section 300, said that
the injuries were not on vital parts of the body and no dangerous weapons were used. Thus it
cannot be safely said that there was intention to cause death of the deceased, but the number of
injuries caused were sufficient enough to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of
nature, even if it cannot be said that death was intended. But this is sufficient enough to bring the
case within Section300 (3) of IPC.

1
AIR 1966 SC 148
Thus the ratio of Anda v. State of Rajasthan, fully fits into the present case.

Thus, the Supreme Court thus rightly was of the opinion that “the High Court was in error in
altering the conviction of the accused persons. And accordingly, the appeal was allowed and
restored the order of the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offense of murder, with a
sentence of life imprisonment.”

What is the difference between ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ and
‘murder’?

“In the scheme of the Indian Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie. All
'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans
'special characteristics of murder', is 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the
purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code
practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is what may be called,
culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is
defined in s. 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second
degree'. This is punishable under the 1st part of Section- 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide
of the third degree.' This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided
for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable
homicide of this degree is punishable under the second Part of s. 304. The academic distinction
between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has vexed the courts for more
than a century. The confusion is caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of
the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minutae
abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions
seems to be to keep in focus the key words used in the various clauses of sec. 299 and 300 and
those two keywords are ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’.”2
Both two offences involve the killing of person. What distinguishes these two offences is the
presence of a special mens rea which consists of four mental attitudes in the presence of any of
which the lesser offence becomes greater. These four mental attitudes are stated in Section 300

2
“Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder”, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/409589/ (12th March 2017).
of Indian Penal Code as distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Unless the offence can be said to involve at least one such mental attitude it cannot be murder.

How to identify whether the accused committed the offence of ‘murder’ or ‘culpable
homicide not amounting to murder’?
For a case to fall within Clause (3) of Section 300 the prosecution requires proving the following
as per J. Vivian Bose in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab3:

a. Firstly, it has to be established that a bodily injury has occurred.

b. Secondly, the nature of the bodily injury has to be proved objectively,
c. Thirdly, the intention of causing the bodily injury is to be proved. There should be an
intention inflict a particular injury, and that it should not be accidental or unintentional or
that some other kind of injury was intended.
d. Fourthly, the injury so caused was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. This is objective and has exclusive of the intention of the offender.

Thus, according to Virsa Singh case, even if the intention was to cause bodily injury sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature and not the intention to cause death of the person,
the case would still fit in the ambit of the offense of murder.

For the question to be solved whether the offense is murder or culpable homicide not amounting
to murder based on the facts, the court shall take into account the three stages that might make it
convenient. The three stages are:

a. Whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another.
If the causal connection between the act done and the death of another person is
established, then it is lead to the second stage for considering whether the act amounts to
culpable homicide defined under Section 299.
b. If the proof is established or the answer is in affirmative, the stage for considering
Section 300 to applied is reached. Here the court examines whether the facts proved
brings the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of Section 300.

3
AIR 1966 SC 1874
  If the answer is in negative, the offense will be culpable homicide not amounting to
murder punishable under Section 304 Part I if Clause (b) of Section 299 is applied or
Part II if Clause (c) of Section 299 is applied.
 If the answer is in affirmative, but the case comes in any of the exceptions of the
Section 300, the offense would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC.
 And if the answer is in affirmative and falls within any four of the clauses of Section
300, the offense would fall within the ambit of murder.

But the guidelines set above are only broad guidelines as they may differ depending upon the
circumstances and the facts of the case and the width of the present offence can cause problems
to judges on sentencing as Lord Lane CJ remarked in the case of R. v Walker4 , “It is truism to
say that of all the crimes in the calendar, the crime of man slaughter faces the sentencing judge
with the greatest problem, because manslaughter ranges in gravity from the borders of murder
right down to those of accidental death. It is never easy to strike exactly the right point at which
to pith the sentence.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Criminal Law Journal , 1977

 Indian Penal Code , 1860
 The Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal.

4
(1992) 13 Cr AppR (S) 474 (476)