Date of the Judgment: September 24, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 727
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a conviction for murder be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused and there is a possibility of a sudden fight? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, where the appellants were initially convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court examined the circumstances of the fight, the injuries sustained by both parties, and the delayed filing of the First Information Report (FIR). The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on November 28, 2016, where Rahul (PW-1) and Sachin (the deceased) were allegedly attacked by Sunil @ Sonu (Accused No.1), Satish @ Chhotu (Accused No.2), Gaurav (Accused No.3), and Nitin @ Devender (Accused No.4). The prosecution’s case was that the accused persons assaulted Rahul and Sachin with knives and dandas due to a pre-existing dispute. Sachin sustained fatal injuries and later died. The appellants, Sunil @ Sonu and Nitin @ Devender, were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which pertains to murder with common intention, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court of Delhi upheld this conviction. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 28, 2016 | Alleged assault on Rahul and Sachin by the accused. |
| November 28, 2016 | Rahul and Sachin taken to the hospital. |
| November 29, 2016 | FIR No. 664/2016 registered by Sunil @ Sonu. |
| November 29, 2016 | Rahul (PW-1) arrives at the police station and his statement is recorded. |
| November 30, 2016 | FIR No. 667 of 2016 registered against the accused. |
| December 2, 2016 | Sachin dies during treatment, Section 302 IPC added. |
| October 25, 2017 | Trial court convicts the appellants. |
| November 6, 2017 | Trial court sentences the appellants. |
| June 26, 2023 | High Court dismisses the appeals. |
| September 24, 2024 | Supreme Court partly allows the appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted Sunil @ Sonu (Accused No.1) and Nitin @ Devender (Accused No.4) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Satish @ Chhotu (Accused No.2) and Gaurav Kumar (Accused No.3) were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeals filed by Sunil @ Sonu and Nitin @ Devender, upholding the trial court’s decision. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines 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 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (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 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of Section 304 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.”
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:
- The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay, which the prosecution failed to explain.
- Rahul (PW-1), the complainant, did not lodge the FIR immediately after the incident, and his testimony contains material contradictions.
- Shivani (PW-2), an aunt of Rahul, is an interested witness, and her testimony is not reliable.
- A cross-FIR (No. 664/2016) was registered by Sunil @ Sonu prior to the current FIR, where the appellants sustained severe injuries. The prosecution failed to explain these injuries.
- The prosecution suppressed the real genesis of the incident by not explaining the injuries sustained by the appellants.
- The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is not sustainable and should be altered to Part-I or II of Section 304 of the IPC.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent-State:
- The trial court and the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and found the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- The judgment and order of conviction and sentence warrant no interference.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent-State) |
|---|---|---|
| Delay in Lodging FIR |
|
|
| Contradictions in Testimony |
|
|
| Injuries to Appellants |
|
|
| Alteration of Conviction |
|
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the prosecution’s failure to explain their injuries and the existence of a prior FIR lodged by one of the appellants suggests a suppression of the true sequence of events, warranting a reduction in the conviction from murder to culpable homicide.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the appellants could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
- Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction needs to be altered to a lesser offence.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellants could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. | No. | The Court found that the possibility of the offence being committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight could not be ruled out. |
| Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction needs to be altered to a lesser offence. | Yes. | The Court altered the conviction to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC, citing the lack of pre-meditation and the possibility of a sudden fight. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The legal provisions considered by the court are:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | – | The Court considered whether the appellants could be convicted under this section, ultimately altering the conviction. |
| Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | – | The Court considered this section in relation to the common intention of the accused, but ultimately altered the conviction. |
| Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | – | The Court altered the conviction to Part-I of this section, finding that the case fit the criteria for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Delay in lodging FIR | The Court acknowledged the delay and found the explanation given by Rahul (PW-1) implausible. |
| Contradictions in testimony of Rahul (PW-1) and Shivani (PW-2) | The Court noted the contradictions and found their testimonies to be unreliable. |
| Injuries sustained by the appellants | The Court observed that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants. |
| Cross-FIR registered by Sunil @ Sonu | The Court considered the existence of the cross-FIR as a possible defense. |
| Conviction under Section 302 should be altered | The Court agreed and altered the conviction to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court considered Section 302 of the IPC, but found that the facts did not support a conviction under this section due to the possibility of a sudden fight without pre-meditation.
- The Court considered Section 34 of the IPC, but the absence of pre-meditation and the possibility of a sudden fight, the Court did not find it applicable.
- The Court applied Section 304 Part-I of the IPC, finding that the case fell under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants.
- The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the implausible explanation given by Rahul (PW-1).
- The material contradictions in the testimonies of Rahul (PW-1) and Shivani (PW-2).
- The possibility of a sudden fight without pre-meditation.
- The existence of a cross-FIR registered by one of the appellants.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Prosecution’s Failure to Explain Injuries | 30% |
| Delay in Lodging FIR & Contradictory Testimony | 30% |
| Possibility of Sudden Fight | 30% |
| Existence of Cross-FIR | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the possibility of the incident occurring in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without any pre-meditation. The Court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellants had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The court found that the prosecution’s version of events was not entirely reliable due to the contradictions and the failure to explain the injuries on the appellants.
The Court stated, “There is nothing on record to establish that there was any pre -meditation. As such, we find that the possibility of the offence being committed by the appellants without pre -meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out.”
The Court also observed, “Undisputedly, the said injuries are not explained by the prosecution.” and “The defence of the accused persons is specific that, it is the deceased Sachin and Rahul (PW -1) had come in a drunken condition at the shop of Satish and they started abusing and assaulting the appellants.”
Key Takeaways
- Conviction for murder can be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused and there is a possibility of a sudden fight.
- The prosecution must provide a plausible explanation for any delay in lodging an FIR.
- The testimony of witnesses should be consistent and reliable.
- The existence of a cross-FIR and injuries on the accused can be crucial in determining the nature of the offense.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released forthwith, as they had already undergone more than 8 years of imprisonment without remission.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there is a possibility of a sudden fight without pre-meditation, and the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must present a complete and credible version of events, and any significant gaps or contradictions can lead to a reduction in the severity of the conviction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, altering the conviction of the appellants from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. The Court’s decision was based on the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants, the delay in lodging the FIR, the contradictions in witness testimonies, and the possibility of a sudden fight without pre-meditation. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith, having already served more than 8 years in prison.
Category:
Parent category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child categories: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Culpable Homicide, Murder, Criminal Law
FAQ:
Q: What does it mean when a murder conviction is altered to culpable homicide?
A: It means that the court found that while the accused did cause the death of the victim, the circumstances did not amount to murder. This could be due to a lack of premeditation, a sudden fight, or other mitigating factors. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder carries a lesser sentence than murder.
Q: What is the significance of the prosecution failing to explain injuries on the accused?
A: If the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused, it raises doubts about the prosecution’s version of events. It suggests that the incident may not have occurred as the prosecution claims, and it might indicate a fight where both sides were involved.
Q: Why is it important for the FIR to be lodged promptly?
A: A prompt FIR ensures that the details of the incident are recorded accurately and without any embellishment. Delays can raise suspicions about the authenticity of the complaint and may indicate that the complainant had time to fabricate or alter their version of events.
Q: What is the difference between Section 302 and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 302 of the IPC deals with murder, which involves the intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Section 304 of the IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which does not involve the same level of intent or knowledge. The punishment for murder is more severe than for culpable homicide.