Attack at the vital part by deadly weapon amounts to murder

Question: Attack at the vital part by deadly weapon amounts to murder. My brother was murdered by villagers on the issue of harvesting fields. The accused were armed with deadly weapons like shotgun, ballam, bhala, sword and lathi-danda (club). They immediately came to my field and stopped my brother from moving the tractor to the field. During the heated exchange of words, one of the accused had hit my brother with ballam at the centre of chest with full force. That attack was targeted at the vital part. After receiving that injury my brother fell and died immediately. The trial court convicted the accused for culpable homicide instead of murder and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. What to do?

As per the injuries suffered by the deceased and his cause of death, the offence of murder is made out. Ballam is a deadly weapon if used with full force at the vital part of the body, causing injuries sufficient to cause death in the natural course. You have not shared the post mortem report. Hence, this advise is based upon the above stated facts of the case.

In Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444 the hon'ble supreme court has held that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances:

1. nature of the weapon used; 
2. whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; 
3. whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
4. the amount of force employed in causing injury; 
5. whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; 
6. whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; 
7. whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;
8. whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; 
9. whether it was in the heat of passion; 
10. whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; 
11. whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.

In your case, there was a conflict arising from the gathering of grains from the field. During the course of this enmity, the accused assembled with deadly weapons to unlawfully resolve their dispute. Subsequently, they reached the location of the incident. The fact that they carried the deadly weapon while heading to the scene itself establishes their common intention to use the weapon if circumstances warrant, which could potentially result in death. Therefore, the accused had the intention to kill.  

Forceful attack at the vital part by deadly weapon proves intention to kill

The degree of intention to kill is the deciding factor to punish the accused for the offence of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In your case, the weapon used was a deadly weapon. Accused used that weapon with full force to inflict grievous injury to the vital part of the body. The conduct of the accused proves that he had a high degree of intention to kill. 

At the time the accused used the weapon with his full force targeting the vital part of the body itself proves that he had the intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, he should be punished for the offence of murder instead of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Punishment under Section 304 IPC seems wrong in the facts of the case. Accused should be punished under Section 302 IPC. because attack the deceased at the vital part of body by a deadly weapon establishes his intention to kill.