Supreme Court converts murder conviction to culpable homicide in a case of sudden fight: Birbal Nath vs. State of Rajasthan (2023)

Date of the Judgment: October 30, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 957
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (authored the judgment)

Can discrepancies in a witness’s statement completely discredit their testimony, especially when the witness is injured and a close relative of the deceased? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal assault. The Court considered whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused of murder charges, or if the trial court’s conviction was correct. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, converted the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances of the case and the credibility of an injured witness.

Case Background

On May 22, 2001, at approximately 3:00 PM, Birbal Nath filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Pachori Police Station in Nagaur, Rajasthan. The FIR stated that around 1:00 PM that same day, his uncle, Chandernath, and aunt, Rami, were working in their field when seven men, armed with weapons, attacked them.

The assailants were identified as Jethnath (with an axe), Dhurnath (with a dang), Meghnath (with a farsi), Rughnath (with a shovel), Babunath (with a dang), Malanath (with an axe), and Devnath (with a dang). The attack resulted in severe injuries to both Chandernath and Rami. Chandernath died while being transported to a hospital in Jodhpur.

The police investigation led to a chargesheet against all the accused except Devnath. The Sessions Court framed charges against the six accused under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 447, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all the accused under Sections 302, 323, 324, 325, 147, 148, 447 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life. Jethnath, Dhurnath, and Meghnath were also convicted under Section 307 of the IPC.

The accused appealed to the Rajasthan High Court, which partly allowed the appeal. The High Court acquitted the accused of the major offenses under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, convicting them only for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, and 325/149 of the IPC. Their sentences were reduced to the period already undergone, which ranged from two to five years.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including:

• Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
• Section 307, IPC: Attempt to murder.
• Section 300, IPC: Defines murder, with exceptions for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 304, IPC: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 308, IPC: Attempt to commit culpable homicide.
• Section 323, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 325, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 447, IPC: Punishment for criminal trespass.

The judgment also refers to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the examination of witnesses by the police during investigation, and Section 162 of the CrPC which states that statements to the police not to be signed and use of statements in evidence. Further, Section 145 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deal with cross-examination of witnesses and impeaching their credit, are also discussed.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Complainant and State) Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the High Court erred in discrediting the testimony of the injured eye-witness, Rami (PW-2), based on minor discrepancies between her statement to the police under Section 161 of the CrPC and her examination-in-chief before the court.
• They contended that Rami’s testimony was crucial as she was an injured witness and the wife of the deceased, making her presence at the scene natural and her account credible.
• The prosecution highlighted that the High Court overlooked the fact that the accused were armed and had attacked Chandernath and Rami, resulting in Chandernath’s death and grievous injuries to Rami.
• The prosecution also argued that the recovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes of the accused further corroborated the prosecution’s case.

Respondent’s (Accused) Arguments:

• The defense argued that there were contradictions in the statements of PW-2, especially regarding the beginning of the incident. In her statement to the police, PW-2 had stated that Jethnath was working in his adjacent field and had an altercation with the deceased. However, she did not mention this in her examination-in-chief.
• The defense contended that the injuries sustained by two of the accused, Meghnath and Jethnath, indicated that it was a case of a free fight between two parties and not a pre-meditated attack.
• The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove a common intention or common object of an unlawful assembly to kill the deceased.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in discrediting the testimony of the injured eye-witness (PW-2) based on minor discrepancies in her statements.
2. Whether the incident was a pre-meditated attack or a sudden fight.
3. Whether the accused had a common intention or common object to kill the deceased.
4. Whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC should be upheld or modified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, emphasizing that minor discrepancies do not discredit a witness.
• The Supreme Court followed Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012, stating that to contradict a witness means to discredit a witness, and mere variation is not enough.
• The Supreme Court followed State of M.P. vs. Mansingh and Others (2003) 10 SCC 414, highlighting that the evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value.
• The Supreme Court used Section 162 of the CrPC to explain the limited applicability of statements to the police.
• The Supreme Court used Sections 145 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain the process of cross-examination and impeaching the credit of a witness.
• The Supreme Court used Section 300 of the IPC to explain the exceptions to murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was influenced by several factors in reaching its decision:

• The credibility of PW-2 as an injured eye-witness was a significant factor. The court emphasized that minor discrepancies should not discredit her testimony, especially given her close relationship with the deceased.
• The court also considered the circumstances of the incident, noting that the contradictions in PW-2’s statements suggested that it was not a pre-meditated attack but rather a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
• The court also took into account the fact that the injuries sustained by the accused were not serious and were not adequately explained by the defense.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful consideration of both the facts and the law. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in discrediting the testimony of an injured witness and in concluding that the incident was a free fight between two parties.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence. The court stated that the High Court had magnified simple, doubtful and unexplained injuries of the accused and had belittled the brutal and murderous attack on PW-2 and her deceased husband, and most importantly expressed serious doubt on the testimony of an injured witness, i.e., PW-2.

The court emphasized that the High Court should not have discarded the testimony of PW-2 based on minor discrepancies in her statements. The court also noted that the High Court had given undue credit to the defense’s evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the accused, which were not credible.

The court concluded that the incident was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as it occurred in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“The statement of an injured eye -witness is an important piece of evidence which cannot be easily discarded by a Court. Minor discrepancies do not matter.”

“We are of the opinion that this case is of culpable homicide not amounting to murder , and not of murder. There were contradictions in the two statements of PW -2 as we have discussed in the preceding paragraphs. These contradictions , however, are not enough to completely discredit this witness. All the same, these contradictions, in the given fact of the case, do give a benefit of doubt to the accused as to the case of premeditated attack of the prosecution.”

“In our opinion, therefore the attack would come under Exception 4 to Section 300, the attack not being premeditated, but was , “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 Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s judgment and converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, and Section 307 to Section 308 of the IPC. The court sentenced each of the accused to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I and three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 308 of the IPC.

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of an injured eye-witness is a significant piece of evidence and should not be easily discarded based on minor discrepancies.
• Courts must consider the overall circumstances of the case, including the possibility of a sudden fight, when assessing the nature of the offense.
• The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused in cases where there is a lack of evidence of pre-meditation.
• The judgment clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the remaining accused (excluding Jethnath, who had passed away) must surrender before the concerned court within four weeks. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused was to be adjusted from the sentences presently awarded. All sentences were to run concurrently.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that minor discrepancies in an injured witness’s testimony do not discredit the witness, and the court must consider the overall circumstances to determine if the incident was a sudden fight or a pre-meditated attack. The judgment also clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s position by converting the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This is a change from the High Court’s position, which had acquitted the accused of the major offenses.

Conclusion

In Birbal Nath vs. State of Rajasthan (2023), the Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision and modified the conviction of the accused from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court emphasized the importance of considering the credibility of injured witnesses and the circumstances of the incident. This judgment clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, providing important guidance for future cases involving sudden fights.