From Murder to Culpable Homicide: Supreme Court Revisits Section 304, IPC in Bihari Rai vs. State of Bihar (2008)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 26, 2008

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.862 of 2007)

Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide if the crime occurred during a sudden quarrel? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Bihari Rai v. State of Bihar, examining the circumstances under which an initial conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could be altered to Section 304 Part I IPC. The core issue revolved around whether the actions of the accused fell within the exceptions provided under Section 300 IPC, specifically Exception 4, which pertains to acts committed without premeditation in the heat of a sudden quarrel.

In this judgment, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, reviewed an appeal against a decision by the Jharkhand High Court. The High Court had partially allowed the appellant’s appeal, altering his conviction from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (murder with common intention) to Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), while acquitting the co-accused.

Case Background

The case originated from a long-standing dispute between the family of the appellant, Bihari Rai, and the family of the deceased, Badri Rai. This dispute had been ongoing since 1952, leading to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and several civil suits. The prosecution contended that this prolonged animosity served as the primary motive for the tragic event.

On June 28, 1978, Badri Rai, accompanied by his servant Mantu Rai, went to his field. His son, Ramfali Rai (PW.1), remained at home. At approximately 9:00 a.m., Ramfali Rai heard shouts of “Maro Maro” (kill, kill) and rushed towards the source of the commotion. He found his father, Badri Rai, being chased by the accused Bihari Rai and two other individuals, Tulsi Rai and Ghutru Rai. Bihari Rai inflicted three blows on Badri Rai—two on the head and one on the hand—causing him to fall. The other two accused also struck Badri Rai with lathis before all three fled the scene. The incident was reportedly witnessed by Ramfali Rai (PW.1), Horil Rai (PW.2), Kuwa Rai (PW.5), Gopi Rai (PW.6), and Jarman Rai (PW.7).

Following the incident, Sub-Inspector Sudhir Kumar Sinha of Jama Police Station received information about the disturbance in Barudih village. After recording the information in the station diary, he proceeded to the scene, where he recorded the statement (fardbeyan) of Ramfali Rai (PW.1) at 3:00 p.m. This statement was then registered as a formal complaint, leading to the First Information Report (FIR). The subsequent investigation included an inquest, during which witnesses were examined, and the body was sent for a post-mortem examination.

Dr. Upendra Prasaad Sinha (PW.9), a Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Dumka, conducted the post-mortem on Badri Rai’s body and noted the following injuries:

• ✓ Incised wound 1” x ½” x 1” on the outer side of the left arm.
• ✓ Incised wound 8” x 1” x 4” cutting the posterior left side of the scalp bone including the brain substance with a large haemorrhage (referred to as “haematoma” in the post-mortem report).
• ✓ Incised wound 6” x 1” x 31/2” cutting the posterior right side of the scalp bone including the brain substance with a large haemorrhage (also referred to as “haematoma” in the post-mortem report).

Dr. Sinha concluded that injuries (ii) and (iii) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that death likely occurred within 36 hours of the injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, relying on the testimonies of eyewitnesses (PWs. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7), found the appellant and co-accused guilty of the crime. Subsequently, the High Court, upon appeal, determined that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was applicable. Consequently, the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant to Section 304 Part-I IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting the co-accused.

Before the High Court, the primary argument was that the names of PWs. 2, 6, and 7 were not mentioned in the initial statement (fardbeyan) given by PW.1. Additionally, it was argued that the trial court should have accepted the plea of the right to private defense, given the acceptance that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel.

Legal Framework

The judgment hinges on the interpretation and application of several key sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• ✓ Section 302 IPC: Defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• ✓ Section 304 IPC: Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, dividing it into two parts based on the intention and knowledge of the offender.
  • ✓ Part I: Applies when the act is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • ✓ Part II: Applies when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• ✓ Section 300 IPC: Defines murder but also outlines exceptions under which culpable homicide is not considered murder. Exception 4 is particularly relevant to this case. “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
• ✓ Section 34 IPC: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• ✓ Section 96 to 106 IPC: Pertain to the right of private defence, outlining the conditions and limits under which a person can defend their body and property.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The defense reiterated the arguments made before the High Court, emphasizing discrepancies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. Specifically, they pointed out that the names of PWs. 2, 6, and 7 were not initially mentioned in the fardbeyan (first statement) given by PW.1.
• ✓ The appellant argued that the incident occurred in the exercise of the right to private defense. They contended that the circumstances justified their actions in protecting themselves during a sudden quarrel.
• ✓ It was also argued that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had not properly examined the case, and the initial information recorded in the station entry regarding the incident was not produced in court.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Bihar):

• ✓ The State supported the judgment of the High Court, arguing that the conviction under Section 304(1) IPC was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
• ✓ The prosecution emphasized the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses, asserting that any minor discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of their accounts.
• ✓ The State argued that the appellant had not established a valid claim of the right to private defense and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel, justifying the lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. What is the appropriate categorization of the offense given the facts and circumstances, particularly considering the argument that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel?
2. Did the accused have a valid right to private defense, and if so, did their actions fall within the permissible limits of that right?
3. Were there any significant lapses in the investigation that would undermine the prosecution’s case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several legal provisions and precedents to arrive at its decision:

• ✓ Section 97 IPC: Deals with the subject-matter of right of private defence.
• ✓ Section 99 IPC: Lays down the limits of the right of private defence.
• ✓ Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 IPC: Give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts, controlled by Section 99.
• ✓ Sections 100 and 101 IPC: Define the limit and extent of right of private defence.
• ✓ Sections 102 and 105 IPC: Deal with commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of body and property respectively.
• ✓ Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 612): The Supreme Court observed that as soon as the cause for reasonable apprehension disappears and the threat has either been destroyed or has been put to route, there can be no occasion to exercise the right of private defence.
• ✓ Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1976 SC 2263): The Supreme Court highlighted that non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance. But mere non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case in all cases.
• ✓ Rizan and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2003 (2) SCC 661): The Supreme Court reiterated principles related to the right of private defense.
• ✓ Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003 (7) SCC 643): The Supreme Court reiterated principles related to the right of private defense.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• ✓ Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 612): Cited to reinforce that the right to private defense is contingent on an ongoing threat.
• ✓ Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1976 SC 2263): Used to emphasize the importance of explaining injuries sustained by the accused, while acknowledging that the absence of such explanation does not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The circumstances of the incident indicated that it occurred during a sudden quarrel, thereby satisfying the conditions of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
• ✓ The lack of evidence supporting a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt negated the claim of the right to private defense.
• ✓ Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies and alleged investigative lapses were deemed insufficient to undermine the prosecution’s case.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was more heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the circumstances surrounding the incident and the evidence presented. However, legal considerations, such as the interpretation of Section 300 IPC and the principles governing the right to private defense, also played a significant role.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of establishing the conditions for Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to apply, particularly the presence of a sudden quarrel without premeditation or undue advantage.
• ✓ It highlights the necessity of providing evidence to support a claim of the right to private defense, including a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
• ✓ The decision underscores that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case, especially when the core facts remain consistent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when an incident occurs during a sudden quarrel without premeditation or undue advantage, and there is no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to justify private defense, the appropriate conviction is under Section 304(1) IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This reaffirms existing legal principles and does not introduce new legal doctrines.

Conclusion

In Bihari Rai v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to alter the appellant’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court emphasized that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel, satisfying the conditions of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and that the appellant had not established a valid claim of the right to private defense. The judgment reinforces the importance of factual context in determining the appropriate categorization of offenses under the Indian Penal Code.