Supreme Court alters conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2021
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a sudden fight without premeditation lead to a conviction for murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, altering a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case highlights the critical distinction between murder and culpable homicide, particularly in situations involving sudden quarrels and the absence of premeditation. The bench comprised of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on August 8, 2006, at approximately 6:30 PM. The deceased, Manku Ram, was at his neighbor Devan’s house when the accused, Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas, approached him regarding a monetary issue. This conversation escalated into a quarrel, during which the accused pushed Manku Ram to the ground and then stood on his abdomen. The incident caused internal injuries to the deceased.

The deceased was not immediately taken to the hospital. It was only on the next day, August 9, 2006, at around 6:30 PM, that Manku Ram was admitted to N.M.D.C. Apollo Central Hospital, Bacheli, after his sister, Manki, was informed of his severe abdominal pain by Channu Ram’s son. He was subsequently referred to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, where he died on August 11, 2006. The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was septicemia resulting from injuries to the small intestine.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for murder, finding that the case did not fall under the fourth exception of Section 300 of the IPC. This conviction was upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which issued a limited notice to determine if the conviction should be altered to Section 304-I of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Legal Framework

The core of this case hinges on Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines murder. It states that culpable homicide is murder, except in specific cases. The relevant parts of Section 300 for this case are:

• Clause 4 of Section 300: “If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury.”
• Exception 4 of Section 300: “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.”

The explanation to Exception 4 clarifies that it is irrelevant which party initiated the provocation or assault.

Arguments

Accused’s Arguments:

• The incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel over money.
• There was no intention to cause the death of the deceased.
• The accused pushed the deceased and sat on his abdomen in the heat of the moment.
• The deceased was taken to the hospital only after a day, and died two days later due to septicemia.
• The case falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, making it culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304-I of the IPC).
• The accused has already served 14.5 years of imprisonment.
• Relied on the case of Sanjay v. State of U.P., [(2016) 3 SCC 62] to argue for altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-I of the IPC.

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The deceased died within three days of the incident while undergoing treatment.
• The cause of death was septicemia caused by injuries to the small intestine due to crushing.
• The doctor’s testimony indicates that the deceased received injuries in the abdomen by crushing.
• The case does not fall under the fourth exception of Section 300 of the IPC.
• The case falls under clause 3/4 of Section 300 of the IPC, which defines murder.
• The decision in Sanjay v. State of U.P., [(2016) 3 SCC 62] is not applicable in this case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
✓ Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused committed murder as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and therefore, whether the courts below rightly convicted the accused for the offense under Section 302 of the IPC, or whether the conviction can be altered to Section 304-I of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the court:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder and its exceptions. The Court analyzed the clauses and exceptions to determine whether the accused’s actions constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Sanjay v. State of U.P., [(2016) 3 SCC 62]: The accused relied on this case, where the court altered a murder conviction to culpable homicide due to the death occurring 62 days after the incident due to septicemia. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from the present one, noting that the deceased in the present case died within three days of the incident while undergoing treatment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court interpreted the statute to determine that the accused’s actions fell under Exception 4, not under the definition of murder.
• Sanjay v. State of U.P., [(2016) 3 SCC 62]: The court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable due to the difference in the time between the incident and the death.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The absence of premeditation on the part of the accused.
• The sudden quarrel that led to the incident.
• The fact that the accused did not use any weapons.
• The incident occurred in the heat of passion.
• The death was a result of septicemia, which was a consequence of the internal injuries sustained during the fight.

The court emphasized that the incident was a result of a sudden fight and not a premeditated act of murder. The court also noted that the deceased was not taken to the hospital immediately, which might have influenced the outcome.

The court considered the following points:

• The accused’s act of pushing the deceased and standing on his abdomen was preceded by a sudden quarrel.
• There was no evidence to suggest that the accused intended to cause death or such bodily injury that would cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
• The case fell squarely under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, which deals with sudden fights in the heat of passion.

The court rejected the argument that the case fell under clause 3/4 of Section 300 of the IPC. The court held that the case was one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304-I of the IPC.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “There is no evidence that there was any premeditation on the part of the accused.”
• “Considering the case of the prosecution as it is and as observed hereinabove, there was a sudden quarrel with respect to money and the accused pushed the deceased and stood on the abdomen in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.”
• “Therefore, both the courts below have materially erred in holding the appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. According to us, at the most, it can be said that the appellant -accused has committed the offence under Section 304 -I IPC.”

The Court did not find any dissenting opinion.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court altered the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304-I IPC).
• The court emphasized that for an act to be considered murder, there must be premeditation and an intention to cause death or such bodily injury that would cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
• In cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the accused may be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The court highlighted that the delay in taking the deceased to the hospital might have contributed to the death.
• The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused, which was 14.5 years.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant-accused be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in the absence of premeditation and in the presence of a sudden quarrel, the act of causing death would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thus would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court clarified that for an act to be considered murder, there must be an intention to cause death or such bodily injury that would cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of the accused from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I of the IPC. This decision underscores the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the act, including the presence of a sudden quarrel, the absence of premeditation, and the intention of the accused. The court’s analysis of Section 300 of the IPC and its exceptions provides a clear distinction between murder and culpable homicide, ensuring a more nuanced application of the law.