Supreme Court: Offence under Section 304(1) IPC, not murder. Accused sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

The Supreme Court determined that the offence committed fell under Section 304(1) IPC rather than Section 300 IPC. The common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, not murder. The Court imposed a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,500 on each accused, with the fine to be paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased. This decision aimed to provide justice to the dependents of the deceased while ensuring proportionate punishment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the offence under Section 300 IPC or Section 304 IPC.
2. Common object of the unlawful assembly.
3. Nature and extent of injuries inflicted.
4. Compensation to the dependents of the deceased under Section 357 CrPC.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the offence under Section 300 IPC or Section 304 IPC:
The Court granted special leave to determine whether the offence committed by the appellants was punishable under Section 300 IPC or any part of Section 304 IPC. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and the High Court confirmed this, finding the common object was to kill the deceased, falling under Section 300, thirdly, read with Section 34 IPC. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the injuries and circumstances, concluding that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the common object was to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, making the offence punishable under Section 304(1) IPC.

2. Common object of the unlawful assembly:
The prosecution needed to establish that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit an offence under Section 300 or that the members knew it was likely to be committed. The Court found that the common object was not to cause death but to inflict injuries likely to cause death. The injuries inflicted were not on vital parts of the body and were mostly simple, leading to the conclusion that the common object was to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, not murder.

3. Nature and extent of injuries inflicted:
The Court examined the injuries in detail, noting that most were simple and not on vital parts of the body. The injuries, though numerous, were not deep or extensive enough to indicate an intention to cause death. The grievous injuries were limited to the right little finger, which was fractured and cut. The cumulative effect of the injuries was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, leading to the conviction under Section 304(1) IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.

4. Compensation to the dependents of the deceased under Section 357 CrPC:
The Court discussed the provision under Section 357 CrPC, which allows for compensation to be paid to the dependents of the deceased. The Court emphasized the importance of compensating the heirs and dependents for the loss resulting from the death, as intended by the legislature. The Court decided to impose a fine of Rs. 3,500 on each accused, to be paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased, in addition to the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment. This approach was to ensure that the dependents received some form of compensation without the need for further civil litigation.

Summary:
The Supreme Court, upon analyzing the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the case, concluded that the offence committed by the appellants fell under Section 304(1) IPC rather than Section 300 IPC. The common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, not murder. The Court imposed a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,500 on each accused, with the fine to be paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased. This decision aimed to provide justice to the dependents of the deceased while ensuring that the punishment was proportionate to the offence committed.

---