Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Satish Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2019

Citation: Not available in the provided text

Judges: Indu Malhotra, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can inconsistencies in medical reports and dying declarations lead to a change in conviction from murder to culpable homicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was initially convicted of murder. The court examined the evidence, including a dying declaration, a medico-legal report, and a post-mortem report, and found discrepancies that led to the conversion of the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment highlights the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases, especially when determining the nature of the offense.

Case Background

The case involves an incident where Satish Kumar and Dhajja Ram assaulted Shamsher, resulting in his death. The prosecution’s case was that Satish Kumar and Dhajja Ram had objections to the relationship of a woman belonging to ‘Dahiya Gotra’ with a man of ‘Ohlan Gotra’. Due to this, they attacked Shamsher with ‘Lathi’ (wooden sticks). Shamsher, while being taken to the hospital, informed Surender (PW-2) and ASI Sri Kishan (PW-9) that Satish Kumar and Dhajja Ram had assaulted him with ‘Lathi’ blows. This statement was considered a dying declaration. The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction of Satish Kumar and Dhajja Ram for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with other offenses.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Satish Kumar and Dhajja Ram for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This conviction was upheld by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Satish Kumar then appealed to the Supreme Court of India challenging his conviction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: 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, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of this section 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 intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The court also considered the third clause of Section 300 of the IPC, which defines murder as: “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.”

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was justified, or if the case fell under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The key arguments were:

• Appellant’s Argument:
  • The appellant argued that there were inconsistencies between the dying declaration, the medico-legal report, and the post-mortem report.
  • The dying declaration mentioned ‘Lathi’ blows on the legs and waist, but not on the head.
  • The medico-legal report did not mention any head injury.
  • The post-mortem report indicated a head injury as the cause of death, which was inconsistent with the other reports.
  • The appellant also pointed to the cross-examination of Dr. R.K. Nandal (PW-4), which raised doubts about whether the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
• Respondent’s Argument:
  • The State of Haryana argued that the findings of the lower courts were correct and should be upheld.
  • The prosecution relied on the dying declaration and the testimonies of witnesses who had witnessed the incident.
  • The State contended that the injuries were sufficient to cause death, and the conviction under Section 302 was justified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is justified and correct, or it should be converted to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The court did not cite any specific cases or books in the provided text. However, it did refer to the following legal provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 300, Indian Penal Code: This section defines murder, specifically referring to the third clause, which states that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, held that the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified. The court noted the inconsistencies between the dying declaration, the medico-legal report, and the post-mortem report. Specifically, the dying declaration mentioned ‘Lathi’ blows on the legs and waist, but not on the head, while the medico-legal report did not mention any head injury. However, the post-mortem report indicated a head injury as the cause of death.

The court also considered the cross-examination of Dr. R.K. Nandal (PW-4), which raised doubts about whether the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court stated, “Clearly, therefore, there is inconsistency between the dying declaration, medico-legal report Ex-PC and the post mortem report Ex-PG.”

The court further observed, “Benefit of doubt in view of the ambiguity and contradictions must go the appellant.”

The court concluded that the condition and mandate of the third clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, was not proved beyond doubt.

Therefore, the court converted the conviction of Satish Kumar from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The court maintained the other convictions and sentences.

Regarding the sentence, the court noted that Satish Kumar had already undergone seven years of imprisonment and had been on bail since July 22, 2011. The court decided not to incarcerate him again, sentencing him to the period already undergone. However, he was required to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default stipulation of one month of simple imprisonment.

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 inconsistencies and ambiguities in the evidence presented. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as required under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also highlighted the contradictions between the dying declaration, the medico-legal report, and the post-mortem report, which created a reasonable doubt regarding the nature of the offense.

Key Takeaways

• Inconsistencies in medical reports and dying declarations can significantly impact the outcome of a criminal case.
• The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death for a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in cases of ambiguity and contradictions in evidence.
• The court may convert a conviction for murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the evidence does not conclusively prove the elements of murder.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s conviction be converted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The court also directed that the appellant would be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default stipulation of one month of simple imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that inconsistencies between the dying declaration, medico-legal report, and post-mortem report, coupled with doubts about the sufficiency of the injury to cause death, can lead to the conversion of a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove all elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt, and any ambiguity or contradiction in the evidence must benefit the accused.

Conclusion

In the case of Satish Kumar vs. The State of Haryana, the Supreme Court converted the appellant’s conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the evidence presented, particularly the inconsistencies between the dying declaration, the medico-legal report, and the post-mortem report, did not conclusively prove that the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This judgment underscores the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases and the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.