LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal
Case Name: Anand Ramachandra Chougle vs Sidarai Laxman Chougala & Ors.
Judgment Date: 6 August 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 6 August 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 749
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Navin Sinha, J.
Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the fight was not premeditated and occurred during a sudden quarrel? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving a land dispute and a violent altercation. The Court considered whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction of the accused from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The complainant and the accused were related and had a land dispute, which was also the subject of a pending civil suit. On June 7, 2002, the deceased and others were returning to their village when they were allegedly attacked by the accused near the house of one Yeellappa Patil. This attack resulted in the death of the deceased. The trial court had convicted all four accused. However, the High Court, upon appeal, concluded that the assault was not premeditated, occurred on the spur of the moment, and both sides had sustained injuries. Consequently, the High Court altered the conviction of two of the accused to Section 304 Part I of the IPC and acquitted the remaining two.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 07.06.2002 | The incident occurred; the deceased was assaulted and died. |
| 07.06.2002 | The accused also lodged a First Information Report (FIR). |
| 07.06.2002 | Accused nos. 1 and 2 were admitted to the District Hospital, Belgaum. |
| 11.06.2002 | Accused nos. 1 and 2 were discharged from the hospital. |
| 6 August 2019 | The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. |
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 302, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 304, Part I, IPC: This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It states, “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
- Section 34, IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
- Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the burden of proving that the case of accused comes within exceptions. It states, “When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the High Court erred in altering the conviction to Section 304 Part I, IPC. They contended that the assault was premeditated, and the accused were armed with weapons like axes, koitas, and bamboo sticks.
- They highlighted that prosecution witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) were injured and that there was no evidence to support self-defense or a spur-of-the-moment assault.
- The appellants submitted that the accused did not take the defence of self-defence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- They relied on the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Faqirey, (2019) 5 SCC 605, to argue that the conviction should be restored to Section 302, IPC.
- They cited Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444, and State of Rajasthan thr. the Secretary vs. Kanhaiya Lal, (2019) 5 SCC 639, to support the argument that a single assault on the head, sufficient to cause death without provocation, justifies a conviction under Section 302, IPC.
- They also cited Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 11 SCC 592, to argue that even if the conviction under Section 304 Part I, IPC, was upheld, the sentence should be enhanced to ten years.
- Relying on Raj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 15 SCC 292, it was submitted that if the accused took a plea of self-defence, the burden was on them under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to demonstrate that their case would come under any of the general exceptions under the IPC.
- They argued that the non-exhibition of the FIR lodged by the accused and the non-presentation of evidence regarding the accused’s injuries were merely defective investigations and did not undermine the prosecution’s case of premeditated murder. They relied on Dayal Singh and others vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 and Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the attack was not premeditated. They stated that the parties, being related and having a land dispute, engaged in a verbal duel and scuffle when they met near Yellappa Patil’s house, resulting in injuries on both sides.
- They contended that the prosecution suppressed the FIR lodged by the respondents, their admission to the hospital, and their injury reports.
- They argued that the prosecution was required to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and that the absence of a defense under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was not consequential.
- Relying on Manoj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 7 SCC 327, they argued that in the absence of a premeditated plan, a sudden quarrel in the background of a civil dispute warrants no interference with the High Court’s order.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Appellants’ Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the Assault | ✓ Assault was premeditated. ✓ Accused were armed with weapons. ✓ Injured witnesses supported the prosecution. |
✓ Assault was not premeditated. ✓ It was a sudden quarrel due to a land dispute. ✓ Both sides sustained injuries. |
| Evidence | ✓ Minor contradictions in prosecution evidence are insufficient to doubt the case. ✓ Failure to investigate the accused’s FIR was a defective investigation. |
✓ Prosecution suppressed the FIR lodged by the accused, their hospital admission, and injury reports. ✓ Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Legal Basis | ✓ Conviction should be under Section 302, IPC, based on precedents. ✓ Even if under Section 304 Part I, IPC, the sentence should be enhanced. ✓ Burden of proof for self-defence is on the accused. |
✓ Conviction under Section 304 Part I, IPC, is correct due to lack of premeditation. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction of the accused from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC. | Upheld the High Court’s decision. | The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not investigating the FIR lodged by the accused, and for suppressing the injury reports of the accused. The court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the High Court’s decision was correct. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Faqirey, (2019) 5 SCC 605 | Supreme Court of India | Conviction under Section 302, IPC | The appellants relied on this case to argue that the conviction should be restored to one under Section 302, IPC. However, the court did not find it applicable in the present case. |
| Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444 | Supreme Court of India | Single assault on the head | The appellants cited this case to argue that a single assault on the head sufficient to cause death justifies conviction under Section 302, IPC. The court distinguished this case from the facts of the present case. |
| State of Rajasthan thr. the Secretary vs. Kanhaiya Lal, (2019) 5 SCC 639 | Supreme Court of India | Single assault on the head | The appellants cited this case to argue that a single assault on the head sufficient to cause death justifies conviction under Section 302, IPC. The court distinguished this case from the facts of the present case. |
| Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 11 SCC 592 | Supreme Court of India | Enhancement of sentence | The appellants relied on this case to argue that even if the conviction under Section 304 Part I, IPC, was upheld, the sentence should be enhanced to ten years. The court did not find it necessary to enhance the sentence. |
| Raj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 15 SCC 292 | Supreme Court of India | Burden of proof for self-defence | The appellants relied on this case to argue that the burden of proof for self-defence is on the accused under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court acknowledged the principle but held that the burden on the accused is not as onerous as that on the prosecution. |
| Dayal Singh and others vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 | Supreme Court of India | Defective investigation | The appellants cited this case to argue that the failure to investigate the accused’s FIR was a case of defective investigation only. The court distinguished this case, stating that the present case was not merely a defective investigation but also a suppression of material evidence. |
| Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532 | Supreme Court of India | Defective investigation | The appellants cited this case to argue that the failure to investigate the accused’s FIR was a case of defective investigation only. The court distinguished this case, stating that the present case was not merely a defective investigation but also a suppression of material evidence. |
| Manoj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 7 SCC 327 | Supreme Court of India | Sudden quarrel | The respondents relied on this case to argue that in the absence of a premeditated plan, a sudden quarrel in the background of a civil dispute warrants no interference with the High Court’s order. The court agreed with this argument. |
| Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422 | Supreme Court of India | Burden of proof on prosecution | The court relied on this case to reiterate that the prosecution must stand on its own feet and cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused. |
| Partap vs. State of U.P., (1976) 2 SCC 798 | Supreme Court of India | Burden of proof for self-defence | The court relied on this case to clarify that the burden on the accused to establish self-defence is not as onerous as that on the prosecution to prove its case. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Punishment for murder | The court considered this section in the context of whether the accused should be convicted for murder. |
| Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Culpable homicide not amounting to murder | The court considered this section in the context of whether the accused should be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. |
| Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention | The court considered this section in the context of whether the accused acted with a common intention. |
| Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Statute | Burden of proving that the case of accused comes within exceptions | The court considered this section in the context of the burden of proof on the accused to establish self-defence. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that the assault was premeditated and the conviction should be under Section 302, IPC. | Rejected. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove premeditation and that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel. |
| Appellants’ submission that the failure to investigate the accused’s FIR was merely a defective investigation. | Rejected. The Court held that it was not merely a defective investigation but also a suppression of material evidence, causing prejudice to the accused. |
| Respondents’ submission that the attack was not premeditated and occurred during a sudden quarrel. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel and that there was no premeditated plan to attack. |
| Respondents’ submission that the prosecution suppressed the FIR lodged by the accused, their hospital admission, and injury reports. | Accepted. The Court found that the prosecution suppressed these materials, which created sufficient doubts about the prosecution’s case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The court distinguished State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Faqirey, (2019) 5 SCC 605* and held that it was not applicable in the present case.
- The court distinguished Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444* and State of Rajasthan thr. the Secretary vs. Kanhaiya Lal, (2019) 5 SCC 639* from the facts of the present case.
- The court did not find it necessary to enhance the sentence as was argued based on Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 11 SCC 592*.
- The court acknowledged the principle in Raj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 15 SCC 292* that the burden of proof for self-defence is on the accused under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but clarified that the burden on the accused is not as onerous as that on the prosecution.
- The court distinguished Dayal Singh and others vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263* and Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532* stating that the present case was not merely a defective investigation but also a suppression of material evidence.
- The court agreed with the argument based on Manoj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 7 SCC 327* that in the absence of a premeditated plan, a sudden quarrel in the background of a civil dispute warrants no interference with the High Court’s order.
- The court relied on Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422* to reiterate that the prosecution must stand on its own feet and cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused.
- The court relied on Partap vs. State of U.P., (1976) 2 SCC 798* to clarify that the burden on the accused to establish self-defence is not as onerous as that on the prosecution to prove its case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The failure of the prosecution to investigate the FIR lodged by the accused with regard to the same occurrence.
- The suppression of the injury reports of the accused, who were admitted to the hospital for treatment.
- The court’s emphasis on the prosecution’s duty to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than relying on the weakness of the defense.
- The court’s recognition that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel and not as a result of a premeditated plan.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Prosecution’s failure to investigate the accused’s FIR and suppress evidence | 40% |
| Sudden quarrel and lack of premeditation | 30% |
| Burden of proof on the prosecution | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the circumstances surrounding the fight and the prosecution’s conduct, than by purely legal considerations.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that:
- The prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the prosecution did not investigate the FIR lodged by the accused and suppressed the injury reports of the accused, which created doubts about the prosecution’s case.
- The Court emphasized that the prosecution must stand on its own feet and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense.
- The Court also noted that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel and not as a result of a premeditated plan.
- The Court reiterated that a fair criminal trial encompasses a fair investigation, a fair trial, and fairness in sentencing. It was observed that the prosecution did not act fairly by concealing relevant materials from the court.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence.”
“If there are materials which the prosecution is unable to answer, the weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not required to prove anything.”
“A fair criminal trial encompasses a fair investigation at the pre-trial stage, a fair trial where the prosecution does not conceal anything from the court and discharges its obligations in accordance with law impartially to facilitate a just and proper decision by the court in the larger interest of justice concluding with a fairness in sentencing also.”
There was no dissenting opinion. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.
Key Takeaways
- The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense.
- Fair investigation is a crucial part of a fair trial, and the prosecution should not suppress or conceal any relevant materials from the court.
- The burden on the accused to establish self-defense is not as onerous as the burden on the prosecution to prove its case.
- A sudden quarrel without premeditation can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, rather than Section 302.
- The suppression of evidence by the prosecution can lead to serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.
Specific Amendments Analysis
Not Applicable.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the suppression of evidence can lead to serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. The judgment reinforces the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the importance of premeditation. The court also reiterated the principle that the burden on the accused to prove self-defence is not as onerous as the burden on the prosecution to prove its case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction of the accused from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The Court emphasized the prosecution’s failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the importance of a fair trial.