1987 (4) TMI 503 - SC - Indian Laws

Lathi blow at village pond: accused claims good-faith mistake u/s 79 IPC, acquittal overturned; convicted u/s 304-II

Section 79 IPC was held inapplicable because the plea of mistake of fact in good faith requires due care and attention, and the accused bore the burden on ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the accused was entitled to the general exception of mistake of fact in good faith under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code so as to exonerate him from criminal liability for the assault resulting in death. (ii) If Section 79 was inapplicable, whether the proved facts established culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of knowledge attributable from the manner of assault. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Applicability of Section 79 (mistake of fact; good faith) Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): Section 79 protects an act done under a mistake of fact (not mistake of law) where the person, in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law in doing it. The Court applied the statutory meaning of 'good faith' as requiring due care and attention, and treated good faith as a question of fact to be determined from proved circumstances. The Court also noted the accepted position that the burden to establish circumstances sustaining this plea lies on the accused, to be discharged on preponderance of probability through evidence or prosecution cross-examination. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found a complete absence of good faith on the proved facts. The accused and the deceased had strained relations; the accused knew the deceased had attended a nearby religious recital and returned thereafter. The Court accepted that the deceased went near the pond to take a bell-metal utensil, but held that the circumstances did not support a bona fide and reasonable belief that the person struck was a thief. The deceased was not shown to have entered the accused's house or been near it; rather, he was at the pond. The Court inferred that the accused was waiting for an opportunity to 'settle the account', stealthily followed the deceased, and delivered a forceful lathi blow on a vulnerable part (the head). The Court further held that even assuming the presence of a thief, that fact would not by itself justify dealing a lathi blow on the head in the circumstances proved, and there was no case set up or supported that the act was done in exercise of self-defence. Conclusions: Section 79 was held inapplicable because the accused did not act under a reasonable mistake of fact in good faith, and the High Court's acceptance of the defence was treated as erroneous, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Issue (ii): Whether the offence made out was Section 304 Part II IPC Legal framework (as applied by the Court): The Court proceeded on the distinction between intention to kill and knowledge that an act is likely to cause death, and treated the latter mental element as sufficient to attract Section 304 Part II where death results from such act. Interpretation and reasoning: The medical evidence showed multiple injuries with a depressed comminuted fracture of the parietal bone and another fracture extending across the skull, and the doctor's opinion supported that the fatal head injury could be caused by a single lathi stroke dealt with great force. The Court relied on the deceased's statement naming the accused as the assailant, the accused's own admission of having struck a lathi blow, and the circumstances indicating a targeted assault on the head. Although the Court did not find it proved that the accused had an intention to kill, it held that, by striking the deceased on the head with a lathi with great force, the accused must be attributed with knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Conclusions: The Court held the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years.