Supreme Court alters conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Krishnamurthy vs. State (2022) INSC 711

Date of the Judgment: 01 September 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 711

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a person be convicted for murder if their actions, though causing death, were not intended to cause death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where an accused was initially convicted of murder but later found to have committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment clarifies the distinction between these two offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court of India, in a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, delivered the judgment. The majority opinion was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between neighbors in the village of Elavathadi. On March 13, 2006, a quarrel erupted between accused no. 1, Govindaraj, and the family of the deceased, Samidurai, over a missing goat. During this altercation, Govindaraj assaulted Samidurai’s son. The following day, March 14, 2006, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Govindaraj, along with Krishnamurthy (accused no. 2) and Selvaraj (accused no. 3), went to Samidurai’s house armed with weapons. They hurled abuses at Samidurai’s family members. When Samidurai came out to confront them, Krishnamurthy struck him on the head with a wooden log, causing him to fall. Subsequently, Govindaraj assaulted Samidurai with an iron pipe on his chest, and Selvaraj also assaulted him with a wooden log. Samidurai succumbed to his injuries later that day at around 4:15 p.m.

The prosecution’s case was that the three accused had come to the deceased’s house with the intention to assault him and his family members. The primary contention of the appellant was that he did not have the intention to cause the death of the deceased.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court, Cuddalore, convicted Govindaraj under Sections 294(b), 324, and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Krishnamurthy was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, and Selvaraj was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Madras modified the convictions. It upheld Krishnamurthy’s conviction under Section 302, but convicted Govindaraj under Sections 324 and 294(b) of the IPC, and Selvaraj under Section 323 of the IPC. The State did not appeal the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused nos. 1 and 3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Only Krishnamurthy appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It has two parts:
  • Part I: Deals with cases where the act is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Part II: Deals with cases where 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 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Krishnamurthy):

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court itself noted that the appellant did not intend to cause the death of the deceased.
• It was submitted that considering the nature of the injuries inflicted with a wooden log, it could not be said that the appellant had the intention to cause murder.
• The counsel contended that at most, the appellant had the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death, and thus, his case should fall under Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than Section 302.
• The counsel emphasized that the other two accused were not convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Respondent’s Arguments (State):

• The State’s counsel supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the findings of the lower courts convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were just and proper.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified, or whether the case fell under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following evidence:

• Testimony of PWs 2, 3, 5, and 6, who stated that the appellant attacked the deceased with a wooden log on his head.
• Testimony of PW-10, Dr. Ezhil, who initially examined the deceased and noted that he was unconscious with suspected head injuries.
• Post-mortem report (Exhibit P-8) by PW-11, which recorded injuries including a fracture of the ribs and subdural hematoma in the head.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that while the appellant did inflict injuries that led to the death of the deceased, it could not be said that he had the intention to cause death. However, he had the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to alter the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Lack of Intention to Cause Death: The Court emphasized that the High Court itself had observed that the appellant’s act was not done intentionally to cause the death of the deceased. This lack of intent was a crucial factor in the Court’s decision.
• Nature of the Weapon and Injuries: The Court considered that the appellant used a wooden log, and while the injuries were severe enough to cause death, they did not necessarily indicate an intention to murder. The Court noted that the injuries could be caused by a wooden log, but it was not a weapon that would clearly indicate an intention to cause death.
• Knowledge of Likelihood of Death: The Court concluded that the appellant had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, which is a key element of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but not the intention to cause death which is required for conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Conviction of Co-Accused: The fact that the other two accused were not convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, also played a role in the Court’s decision. The Court noted that the High Court did not convict the other accused under Section 302 r/w Section 34, which indicated that the actions of the appellant should also be viewed differently.

The Supreme Court stated, “it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the appellant had an intention to cause such injuries to the deceased-Samidurai so as to cause his death.”

The Court also observed, “In our opinion, at the most it could be said that he had committed the alleged act with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death.”

The Court concluded, “Therefore, his case would fall under Section 304(II) of IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between murder (Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860).
• For a conviction under Section 302, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cause death.
• If the accused had the knowledge that their act was likely to cause death but did not have the intention to cause death, the conviction would fall under Section 304 Part II.
• The nature of the weapon used and the injuries inflicted are important factors in determining the intention of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. Since the appellant had already undergone imprisonment for a longer term, the Court ordered his immediate release.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the intention to cause death is a necessary ingredient for conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. If the intention is absent but the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death is present, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Krishnamurthy vs. State altered the appellant’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court emphasized that the intention to cause death is a crucial element for a murder conviction. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between intent and knowledge in criminal law, ensuring that individuals are convicted for offenses that accurately reflect their state of mind and actions.