Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 10 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 12

Judges: Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan

When does a fight between husband and wife lead to a murder charge? The Supreme Court of India recently examined a case where a husband was convicted of murder for causing his wife’s death during a domestic dispute. The core issue was whether the conviction should stand as murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), or be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

Shantaben, the mother of the deceased Shakuben, filed a complaint with the Nabipur Police on 15th March 2008. She stated that her daughter Shakuben had been married to the accused, Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava, for about eight years. At the time of the incident, Shakuben and Lavghanbhai were living in Navinagri of Shahpura village and working as laborers. On the day of the incident, Shakuben and her mother went to work in a field. They returned home around noon for lunch. Shakuben went to her house, and soon after, her six-year-old son, Vishnu, came to Shantaben, saying that his mother had been hit on the head with a cot leg and was bleeding. Shantaben rushed to her daughter’s house and found her unconscious with a blood-stained cot leg nearby. Witnesses reported that an argument had occurred between Shakuben and Lavghanbhai regarding the preparation of food. Lavghanbhai, in a fit of anger, struck Shakuben on the head with the cot leg and fled. Shakuben was taken to a hospital in Bharuch and later transferred to Vadodara for further treatment. Shakuben died ten days after the incident while undergoing treatment.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 302 of the 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 IPC: This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is divided into 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.

Arguments

The arguments in this case centered on whether the actions of the appellant, Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava, constituted murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. The prosecution argued for a conviction under Section 302, while the defense contended for a conviction under Section 304.

Arguments by the Prosecution:

• The prosecution argued that Lavghanbhai intentionally caused the death of his wife, Shakuben, by hitting her on the head with a cot leg.
• The prosecution highlighted that the incident occurred after an argument between the couple, indicating a motive.
• The prosecution emphasized the severity of the injury and the fact that it led to Shakuben’s death ten days later.

Arguments by the Defense:

• The defense argued that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment, during a sudden quarrel.
• The defense submitted that Lavghanbhai did not have the intention to cause death, but acted impulsively.
• The defense highlighted that only one blow was inflicted, suggesting a lack of premeditation.
• The defense contended that the case falls under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, as there was no intention to cause death or grievous injury, but the act was done with the knowledge that it could cause death.

The innovativeness of the argument by the defense lies in emphasizing the lack of premeditation and the sudden nature of the altercation, which are crucial factors in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is justified, or whether it should be converted to a conviction under Section 304 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Dhirendra Kumar versus State of Uttarakhand [(2015) 3 SCALE 30] – The Supreme Court of India laid down the parameters to be considered while deciding whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC or 304 IPC.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Dhirendra Kumar versus State of Uttarakhand [(2015) 3 SCALE 30]: The court followed the parameters laid down in this case to differentiate between Section 302 and Section 304 of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to convert the conviction from murder to culpable homicide was primarily influenced by the circumstances surrounding the incident, the nature of the weapon used, and the lack of premeditation. The court emphasized that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel, and there was no intention to cause death. The court also noted that only one blow was inflicted, and the medical evidence suggested that not much force was used. These factors collectively led the court to conclude that the case fell under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the prosecution’s case that the incident occurred due to a dispute over the delay in cooking lunch and that the accused got instigated and hit the deceased with a cot leg. The court also considered the fact that only one blow was inflicted. It noted that the medical evidence did not suggest that much force was used. The court rejected the interpretation that the incident was a murder and instead, accepted that the incident took place due to sudden provocation and in a heat of passion. The court observed that the appellant did not take any undue advantage and acted without any cruelty. The court also considered the parameters laid down in Dhirendra Kumar versus State of Uttarakhand [(2015) 3 SCALE 30].

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is evident in the following quotes from the judgment:

“We find that the prosecution case itself proceeds that the incident took place in the spur of moment.”

“It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that only one single blow was inflicted.”

“Manifestly, the incident took place due to sudden provocation and in a heat of passion the appellant had struck a blow on his wife, without taking any undue advantage.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances of the incident, the nature of the weapon used, and the intent of the accused when determining whether an act constitutes murder or culpable homicide.
• The Court highlighted that a sudden quarrel and lack of premeditation are crucial factors in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide.
• The judgment underscores that not every act of violence resulting in death amounts to murder, and the courts must carefully examine the facts and circumstances of each case.
• The decision reinforces the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, and in this case, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

This section is not applicable as there are no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of sudden altercations resulting in death, where there is no intention to cause death or grievous injury, but the act is done with the knowledge that it could cause death, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and not under Section 302 of the IPC. This judgment clarifies the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances of the incident and the intent of the accused. There is no change in the previous position of law, as the court followed the parameters laid down in Dhirendra Kumar versus State of Uttarakhand [(2015) 3 SCALE 30].

Conclusion

In the case of Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava vs. The State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court emphasized that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel, and there was no intention to cause death. The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, highlighting the importance of proportionality in sentencing.