Supreme Court alters conviction from culpable homicide amounting to murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Pop Singh & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 1038 (29 November 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1038
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can an assault with blunt weapons resulting in death be classified as culpable homicide amounting to murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while examining an appeal against a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case revolves around an incident where the accused assaulted the deceased with sharp-edged weapons, leading to his death. The key issue before the Court was whether the accused intended to cause death or had the knowledge that their actions could lead to death, thereby determining the appropriate charge under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The case originates from a dispute over a land purchase between the accused and the father of the deceased, Mr. Guman Singh. On April 23, 1997, at approximately 7:30 a.m., the deceased, Jeevan Singh, was on his way to a vegetable market in Indore on his scooter. While passing through Village Alwasa, he was attacked by the appellants, who were armed with an axe, farsa, and dharia. The appellants assaulted Jeevan Singh, causing him to fall from his scooter.

P.W.6 Padam Singh, the uncle of the deceased, witnessed the assault upon hearing Jeevan Singh’s cries. He saw the appellants attacking Jeevan Singh with sharp weapons. When the appellants tried to attack Padam Singh, he fled and hid in a nearby jungle. Other witnesses, P.W.1 Bhagwantibai, Ramesh, and P.W.7 Peer Mohd., also witnessed the incident. Following the assault, the appellants went to Guman Singh’s house and threatened him. Jeevan Singh was taken to the hospital in Indore by P.W.8 Peer Mohd. and Rajendra Singh.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged under Sections 307, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). After Jeevan Singh’s death four days later, the charges were altered to Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 148 and Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC, sentencing them to two years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for the offense under Section 148 and ten years of R.I. for the offense under Section 304 (Part-I), along with a fine of Rs. 2,000.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction under Section 304 (Part-I) but reducing the sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions under consideration in this case are:

• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is divided into two parts:
  • Part I: Applies when the act causing death 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 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants, represented by Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, argued that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not on vital parts of the body but rather on the hands and legs.
• They contended that there was no intention or knowledge on their part that the injuries would result in death.
• Therefore, the case should fall under Section 325 or 326 of the IPC, for which the period already undergone (three years and five months) would suffice.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent, represented by Shri Harmeet Singh Ruprah, argued that the High Court had already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence to seven years.
• They submitted that the case should fall under Section 302 of the IPC because the appellants, armed with deadly weapons, had waylaid the deceased due to previous enmity.
• They emphasized that the deceased sustained nine injuries, thus justifying the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable or requires alteration to Section 304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any cases or books in this judgment.

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, particularly the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court noted that all nine injuries were lacerated wounds, which could only have been caused by the blunt side of the weapons. This indicated that the appellants did not intend to cause death by using the sharp side of the weapons.

The Court concluded that the appellants did not have the intention to cause death, but they had the knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death. Therefore, the Court altered the conviction from Section 304 (Part-I) to Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC.

The Court sentenced the appellants to five years of rigorous imprisonment, considering they had already served three years and five months.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): The Court distinguished between Part I and Part II of the section, concluding that the case fell under Part II as there was no intention to cause death, but there was knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death.
• Section 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): The Court rejected the application of these sections, stating that the injuries were not simple hurt or grievous hurt, but fell under the purview of culpable homicide.
• Section 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): The Court upheld the conviction under these provisions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. The fact that all the injuries were lacerated wounds caused by the blunt side of the weapons played a crucial role in the Court’s conclusion that there was no intention to cause death. However, the Court also acknowledged that the appellants had the knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death, which led to the conviction under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The injuries were not on vital parts of the body, suggesting a lack of intent to kill.
• The use of the blunt side of the weapons indicated that the appellants did not intend to cause death.
• The appellants had the knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death, thus making it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the possibility that the appellants intended to cause death but rejected it due to the nature of the injuries. The Court also considered the possibility of a conviction under Section 325 or 326 of the IPC but found it inappropriate given the severity of the injuries and the resulting death. The final decision was based on the understanding that the appellants had the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death, even if they did not intend to cause death.

The Court’s decision is summarized as follows:

• The injuries were caused by the blunt side of the weapons.
• There was no intention to cause death.
• The appellants had the knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death.
• The conviction was altered to Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC.

“We, therefore, find that it cannot be said that the appellants had an intention to cause the death of the deceased. However, from the nature of injuries, it is clear that the act was done with the knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause the death of the deceased.”

“We are, therefore, of the considered view that the case would not fall under Section 304 (Part-I) and would fall under Section 304 (Part-II) of the I.P.C.”

“For the said offence, we find that 05 years rigorous imprisonment would subserve the ends of justice.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 304 (Part-I) to Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC.
• The sentence was reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
• The judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between intention and knowledge in cases of culpable homicide.
• It emphasizes that the nature of injuries and the manner in which they were inflicted play a crucial role in determining the appropriate charge.

Directions

The appellants were directed to surrender to custody within four weeks to serve the remainder of their sentence.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of culpable homicide, the distinction between Part I and Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is crucial. If the injuries are not inflicted with the intention to cause death but with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death, the conviction should be under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC. This judgment clarifies the importance of considering the nature of injuries and the manner in which they were inflicted to determine the appropriate charge.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, altering the conviction of the appellants from Section 304 (Part-I) to Section 304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court found that while the appellants did not intend to cause death, they had the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death. The sentence was reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, with the appellants required to surrender to custody to serve the remainder of their sentence.