Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder in Karimans Case

Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 335

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a sudden fight without premeditation lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man was initially convicted of murder for causing the death of his second wife during a quarrel. The court examined whether the act constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, focusing on the intention and knowledge of the accused. This judgment clarifies the distinction between these offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Dasmet Bai, who was living with the appellant, Kariman, as his second wife. On September 11, 1999, at approximately 2:00 PM, Kariman allegedly assaulted Dasmet Bai with fists and stones, leading to her death. Budhram, the uncle of the deceased, reported the incident to the Kusmi Police Station on the same day at 5:20 PM. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against Kariman under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The post-mortem examination, conducted by Dr. R.K. Tripathi, revealed a bruise on the left side of Dasmet Bai’s body, along with a fractured rib that caused a lacerated spleen, leading to fatal hypovolemic shock. The trial court convicted Kariman under Section 302 of the IPC, a decision upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. Kariman then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Kariman under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld this conviction. Kariman then appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued a limited notice on July 21, 2023, to examine whether the conviction could be converted from Section 302 to either Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Sections 300 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 300 defines murder, while Section 304 deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The key distinction lies in the intention and knowledge of the accused.

Section 300 of the IPC states:

“300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
4thly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

Section 304 of the IPC outlines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder:

“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.— …or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if 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 (Kariman):

• The incident occurred due to a sudden dispute between the accused and the deceased.
• The accused chased the deceased and hit her with fists and slaps.
• The accused picked up a stone and gave a single blow.
• The medical evidence does not state that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
• The act falls under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, as there was no intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• The appellant has been in custody for 17 years, and a reduction in sentence is warranted.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Chhattisgarh):

• The accused chased the deceased without any reason.
• After the deceased fell, the accused hit her with a stone.
• The accused had both the knowledge and intention to cause death.
• The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC should be upheld.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC could be converted either to Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder and the circumstances under which culpable homicide becomes murder.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Specifies the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing between acts done with the intention to cause death and those done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Section 300* of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to establish the definition of murder and to determine that the actions of the accused did not fall within the ambit of murder.
• The Court used Section 304* of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to establish the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and to determine that the actions of the accused fell within the ambit of this section.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the lack of intention to cause death and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court noted that the fight was sudden, and the accused was unarmed when he chased the deceased. The single blow with a stone, while fatal, did not demonstrate the intention required for a murder conviction. The court also considered that the medical evidence did not conclusively state that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court emphasized the distinction between intention and knowledge, concluding that the act fell under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the act of the accused did not meet the criteria for murder under Section 300 of the IPC. The court noted that the accused did not have the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The court also considered that the incident happened due to a sudden quarrel, and the accused used a stone that was readily available, without any premeditation. The court concluded that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, thus falling under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can be it accepted that the accused had the intention to cause injury/injuries to the victim with the intention or knowledge that the same would result into her death.”

“The accused can at best be attributed with the knowledge that the injury of the nature which he inflicted upon Dasmet Bai(deceased) was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.”

“Hence, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the accused as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court for offence under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable in facts as well as in law.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court modified 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 importance of distinguishing between intention and knowledge in determining the nature of the offence.
• A sudden quarrel without premeditation does not automatically lead to a murder conviction.
• Medical evidence plays a crucial role in determining the nature of the injuries and their likelihood to cause death.
• The court reduced the sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, considering that the appellant had already served 17 years in custody.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of sudden quarrel without premeditation, where the accused does not have the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence falls under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, and not Section 302. This clarifies the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the importance of intention and knowledge in determining the nature of the offence.

Conclusion

In the case of Kariman vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court altered the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the distinction between intention and knowledge in cases of sudden altercations. The judgment highlights that a fatal blow during a sudden fight, without the intention to cause death, does not automatically qualify as murder. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of examining the specific circumstances of each case to ensure that the appropriate legal provisions are applied.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Culpable Homicide
• Murder
• Criminal Law

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in Kariman vs. State of Chhattisgarh?

A: The main issue was whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court modified 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.

Q: What is the difference between Section 302 and Section 304 of the IPC?

A: Section 302 of the IPC deals with murder, which requires the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Section 304 of the IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without the intention to cause death.

Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider in this case?

A: The Supreme Court considered that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel, the accused did not have the intention to cause death, the medical evidence did not conclusively state that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and the accused was unarmed while chasing the deceased.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the importance of intention and knowledge in determining the nature of the offence. It also highlights that a fatal blow during a sudden fight, without the intention to cause death, does not automatically qualify as murder.