LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable when the incident occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra
[Judgment Date]: 20 November 2024
Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 878
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a person be convicted for murder if the death occurred during a sudden fight without any prior planning? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was initially convicted of murder. The Court examined whether the circumstances of the fight warranted a conviction for murder or a lesser offense. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, with the opinion authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on 21st March 2014. Sunita Bhosale (PW-6) and her husband, Gopal Bhosale, visited Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5)’s house. At that time, Rajendra was away. While Sunita and Gopal were talking to Rajendra’s wife, Chayya, the appellant, Sunny @ Santosh, arrived and began verbally abusing Chayya and Rajendra over a loan. When Chayya tried to calm him down, Sunny attempted to assault her. Gopal intervened, asking Sunny to stop the abuse and suggesting they resolve the issue the next day. Sunny initially moved away but then started abusing Gopal, challenging him to come outside. Gopal followed Sunny towards the Khadkoba Temple, where Sunny assaulted him with a bamboo stick, causing severe head injuries. Mangesh Bhosale (PW-3), Aniket Bhosale, and Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5) arrived at the scene and saw Sunny assaulting Gopal. Sunny then fled the scene. Other people gathered, and Gopal was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 21st March 2014 | Incident occurred: Sunny abused and assaulted Gopal Bhosale with a bamboo stick. |
| 21st-22nd March 2014 | FIR No. 54 of 2014 was lodged at 1:35 AM by Sharad Bhosale (PW-4) at Police Station Khandala. |
| 7th July 2015 | The trial court convicted Sunny for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| 5th August 2020 | The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed Sunny’s appeal. |
| 4th October 2024 | Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant. |
| 20th November 2024 | The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court, Additional Sessions Judge – 3, at Satara, convicted Sunny for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Sunny appealed this decision to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s conviction. Subsequently, Sunny appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provisions 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 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It has two parts:
- Part I: Deals with culpable homicide 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 culpable homicide 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.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The testimonies of Mangesh Bhosale (PW-3), Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5), and Sunita Bhosale (PW-6) contain material contradictions and inconsistencies.
- There are contradictions between the FIR and the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
- The incident was a result of a sudden and grave provocation during a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. Therefore, the conviction should not be under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), but a lesser offense.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The testimonies of the three eyewitnesses are consistent on the material aspects of the case.
- Circumstantial evidence also points towards the appellant’s guilt.
- There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court.
[TABLE] of Submissions:
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Contradictions in Evidence | ✓ Material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies. ✓ Contradictions between FIR and eyewitness accounts. |
✓ Eyewitness accounts consistent on material facts. ✓ Circumstantial evidence supports guilt. |
| Nature of Offence | ✓ Incident was a result of sudden provocation during a quarrel. ✓ Conviction should be for a lesser offence than murder. |
✓ Concurrent judgments of lower courts should not be disturbed. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable, or whether the appellant should be convicted for a lesser offense.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
[TABLE] of Issue Treatment:
| Issue | Court’s Treatment | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable? | Conviction altered to Section 304 Part I IPC. | The incident occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation, and there was no clear motive for murder. |
Authorities
The court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
- Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
[TABLE] of Authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Parliament of India | Conviction under this section was altered. |
| Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Parliament of India | Conviction was altered to Part I of this section. |
Judgment
[TABLE] of How Submissions Were Treated:
| Submission | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies. | Court acknowledged some inconsistencies but found the core testimonies reliable. |
| Contradictions between FIR and eyewitness accounts. | Court did not find these contradictions significant enough to discredit the prosecution’s case. |
| Incident was a result of sudden provocation during a quarrel. | Court accepted this argument, altering the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| Eyewitness accounts consistent on material facts. | Court agreed that the core testimonies were consistent. |
| Circumstantial evidence supports guilt. | Court agreed that the circumstantial evidence pointed towards the appellant. |
| Concurrent judgments of lower courts should not be disturbed. | Court disagreed, finding that the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not appropriate in the given circumstances. |
How Each Authority Was Viewed by the Court:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court found that the circumstances did not warrant a conviction under this section because there was no premeditation or motive for murder.
- Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court found that the facts of the case fit under Part I of this section, as the death occurred during a sudden fight without any planning.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The lack of premeditation in the assault.
- The absence of a clear motive for murder.
- The sudden nature of the fight that led to the death.
- The fact that the weapon used was a commonly available bamboo stick.
- The sequence of events, where the deceased followed the appellant after the initial altercation.
[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of premeditation | 30% |
| Absence of clear motive | 25% |
| Sudden nature of the fight | 25% |
| Commonly available weapon | 10% |
| Deceased followed the appellant | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, such as the lack of premeditation, the sudden fight, and the absence of a motive. The legal considerations were secondary, focusing on the application of Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to these facts.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s actions did not constitute murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court noted that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel, without any prior planning or motive. The Court also emphasized that the weapon used was a commonly available bamboo stick, not a weapon that was brought with the intention to cause harm. The Court stated:
“From the testimony of Sunita Bhosale (PW -6) itself, it will be clear that after a scuffle took place at the house of Rajendra Bhosale (PW -5), the accused appellant went from there and the deceased followed him. Thereafter, as to how the assault took place is not clear either from the evidence of Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5) or from the evidence of Sunita Bhosale (PW -6).”
The Court also observed:
“The evidence of the eyewitnesses also does not show that the appellant had come with any weapon. On the contrary, the medical evidence would show that the injuries caused are with the bamboo stick, which is commonly available in a village.”
The Court further stated:
“In that view of the matter, we find that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, therefore, deserves to be altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC.”
The Court found that the appellant did not act with the intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, but rather the death occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden fight. Therefore, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may not be sustainable if the death occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation.
- The absence of a clear motive and the use of a commonly available weapon can be factors in determining whether the offense is murder or culpable homicide.
- The court will consider the sequence of events and the circumstances surrounding the incident to determine the appropriate conviction.
- This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, particularly in cases of sudden fights.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be altered to one under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also noted that the appellant had already undergone more than 9 years of actual imprisonment and more than 12 years with remission, and therefore, sentenced him to the period already undergone. The bail bonds were discharged.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a death occurs during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and without a clear motive for murder, the conviction should be under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Court has clarified the application of the law to the facts of the case.
Conclusion
In the case of Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the death occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation or motive, and the appellant had already served a significant period of imprisonment. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding sudden fights and their implications for murder convictions.