Supreme Court of India
SUBRAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA
- Decided
- 5 August 1993
- Judges listed
- M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, A.S. ANAND
- Disposal
- Modified
Citations
- Official
- [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 512 · 1993 INSC 255
- Also cited as
- (1993) 3 SCC 722
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
On a review of the judgment, we find that the opinion expressed at pages 10 to 12 (internal) corresponding to para 11 of the reported judg-. ment in 1993 (3) sec page - 32, is capable of being misinterpreted. The opinion expressed therein was required to be confined to the peculiar facts of the case, but it tends to give an impression as if it is a general exposition of law which it was not meant to be. We, therefore, substitute that paragraph reading "Since appellant 1 Subran .............. committed by the four appellants?" (page 10 to 12), by following:
pp. 512–513, margin G
"Appellant No. l, Subran, had rightly not been charged for the substantive offence of murder under Section 302 JPC. Subran, appellant No. 1, was not attributed the fatal injury or identified as the person who caused the fatal blow. According to the medical evidence, none of the injuries allegedly caused by appellant-Subran either individually or taken collectively with the other injuries cause by hin1, were. sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Suku. There is no material on the record to show that the injuries inflicted by Subran, with the chopper, were inflicted with the intention to cause death of Suku. Under these circumstances, the cnnviclion of the first appellant, Subran, for an offence under Section 302 I PC simpliciter was neither desirable nor appropriate. The Hlgh Court, it appears, failed to consider the scope of clause (3) of Section 300 !PC in its proper perspective. In the facts of the present case, the intention to cause murder of Suku deceased could not be attributed to the said appellant as the medical evidence also unmistakably shows that the injuries attributed to him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of tbe deceased. Appellant No. l Subrnn, therefore, could not have been convicted for the substantive offence under Section 302 !PC and his conviction for the said offence cannot be sustained. 'fhat Suku died as a result of cumulative effect of all the injuries inflicted on him by all the four appellants stands established on the record. The question, therefore, arises what offence did the four appel-
p. 513, margin B
!ants co1nn1it?'
p. 513, margin F
The Judgn1ent is accordingly reviewed anc.1 the afore~aid substitution in the judgment effected. RP. Review Petition revic\ved.
p. 513, margin F