Supreme Court alters murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Kalabai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 418
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can an act of throwing a burning stove on someone be considered murder, or does it fall under a less severe category of culpable homicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a woman was convicted of murder for throwing a burning stove on her sister-in-law, resulting in fatal injuries. The Court examined the evidence to determine whether the act was intentional murder or a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which carries a lesser sentence.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph. The judgment was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

On August 20, 1999, a quarrel broke out between Lalita Bai and her husband, Vijay Singh. Kalabai, Lalita Bai’s sister-in-law, who lived on the ground floor, came upstairs where Lalita Bai was boiling milk on a kerosene stove. During the quarrel, Kalabai threw the burning stove on Lalita Bai, causing her clothes to catch fire and resulting in severe burn injuries. Lalita Bai was admitted to M.Y. Hospital in Indore.

Based on the information received from the hospital, the police registered a case against Kalabai under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Lalita Bai succumbed to her injuries on August 23, 1999, and the case was then registered under Section 302 of the IPC, which deals with murder. The trial proceeded against both Kalabai and Vijay Singh.

The prosecution presented 24 witnesses. The trial court, relying on Lalita Bai’s dying declaration recorded on August 21, 1999, found Kalabai guilty of murder and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. Vijay Singh was acquitted. Kalabai appealed to the High Court, which upheld her conviction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Kalabai under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the dying declaration of the deceased and sentenced her to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court issued a limited notice on July 2, 2015, focusing solely on the nature of the offense, specifically whether the conviction should be under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

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 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, IPC: This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is divided into 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. 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 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, IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that Kalabai should not have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, as there was no motive for her to kill Lalita Bai.
• It was contended that the appellant did not have the intention to cause the death of the deceased.
• The counsel argued that the deceased was not in a fit physical condition to record her statement, as the medical report indicated that she was restless and her pulse was not palpable.
• The counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan, (1998) 8 SCC 355, where the court altered a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC in a similar case.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that the deceased’s physical condition was certified by the doctor as fit to record her statement.
• It was submitted that the burn injury on the neck and head was only 8%, and the dying declaration was rightly relied upon by the lower courts.
• The State argued that given the limited notice issued by the Supreme Court, the appellant should not be permitted to challenge the conviction but only the nature of the offense.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. What is the nature of the offense committed by the appellant? Specifically, should the conviction be under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Hari Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan, (1998) 8 SCC 355: The Supreme Court relied on this case, where a similar act of throwing a burning stove resulted in a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, not Section 302. The Court in Hari Shanker’s case held that while the act of throwing a burning stove showed knowledge that it could cause death, it did not necessarily demonstrate an intention to kill.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The case of Hari Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan, (1998) 8 SCC 355* was followed by the Court. The Court held that the facts of the present case were similar to the facts of the above case and in the above case this Court had altered the conviction from under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, held that while the act of throwing a burning stove was likely to cause death, there was no evidence to prove that Kalabai had the intention to cause Lalita Bai’s death. The Court noted that the incident occurred during a quarrel and that there was no prior enmity between Kalabai and the deceased.

The Court emphasized that the trial court had not considered whether the act was done with the intention to cause death, focusing instead on the fact that Kalabai had thrown the burning stove. In light of this, the Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

The Court stated: “There cannot be any issue that when a person throws a burning stove on a person there is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.” However, it also noted, “There is no evidence to come to conclusion that the appellant had any intention to kill the deceased.” The court also observed, “As per statement of deceased herself that a quarrel was going on between herself and her husband, Vijay Singh and during that quarrel, the appellant who is living in the lower floor of house arrived at the scene.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by the lack of evidence of intention to cause death, the circumstances of the incident (a quarrel), and the precedent set by the Hari Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan, (1998) 8 SCC 355 case. The Court emphasized that while the act of throwing a burning stove was dangerous and likely to cause death, it did not necessarily constitute murder without proof of intent.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court gave more weight to the factual aspects of the case, such as the absence of prior enmity and the circumstances of the quarrel, while also considering the legal precedent and the difference between murder and culpable homicide.

Key Takeaways

• The act of throwing a burning stove on a person can be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II of the IPC) if there is no intention to cause death, even if there is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
• The presence of a quarrel or sudden provocation can be a factor in determining the nature of the offense.
• The courts will look into the presence of prior enmity, motive, and intention to cause death to determine whether the act constitutes murder.
• The dying declaration of the deceased is a crucial piece of evidence, provided the deceased is in a fit state of mind to give the statement.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the alteration of the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, and reduced the sentence of imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for five years.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the act of throwing a burning stove, while dangerous and likely to cause death, does not automatically constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC. If there is no intention to cause death, the offense falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. This reaffirms the principle that intention is a crucial element in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a lesser offense.

This judgment follows the precedent set in Hari Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan, (1998) 8 SCC 355, and clarifies the distinction between murder and culpable homicide in cases involving acts that are likely to cause death but lack the intention to cause death.

Conclusion

In the case of Kalabai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court emphasized the absence of intention to cause death and relied on the precedent set in a similar case. This judgment highlights the importance of considering the intention behind an act when determining the nature of the offense in criminal cases. The Court reduced the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment.