Supreme Court modifies conviction for Budhi Lal in culpable homicide case: Budhi Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand (26 September 2008)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2008

Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma

Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code be modified to Section 304 Part-I based on the factual scenario and manner of assault? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Budhi Lal v. State of Uttarakhand. The case revolves around the death of Jashu Devi, allegedly murdered by her husband, Budhi Lal. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined the evidence and circumstances to determine the appropriate conviction, leading to a modification of the sentence.

Case Background

The prosecution’s case is that Budhi Lal (the appellant) lived in village Airash, one kilometer away from the main village. He had two wives, Sobati Devi (from whom he had no children) and Jashu Devi (the deceased), with whom he had seven children. On 9 August 1985, Jaspal (PW.3) visited Budhi Lal’s house to purchase a pair of bullocks for Rs. 1200 and stayed overnight.

During the night of 29/30 August 1985, at around 2 a.m., Budhi Lal allegedly murdered Jashu Devi. Jaspal (PW.3) claimed he woke up to use the toilet and saw Budhi Lal assaulting Jashu Devi. When questioned, Budhi Lal told Jaspal to mind his own business and sleep in another room. The following morning, Budhi Lal informed villagers that Jashu Devi had died of stomach pain and asked Jaspal to inform his relatives in Jilasu.

Sobati Devi informed the village Pradhan, who then notified the Patwari (PW.6), who also had police powers in the Uttarakhand hills. The Patwari received the information on 10 August 1985 and visited the site on 11 August 1985. He took possession of the body, prepared the inquest report, and sent the body for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem, conducted by Dr. S.K. Srivastava (PW.1) on 12 August 1985, concluded that Jashu Devi died due to suffocation resulting from obstruction in the respiratory passage.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 20 November 1985, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial court primarily relied on the evidence of PW.3 and PW.5, along with the fact that the accused and deceased were last seen together, to convict Budhi Lal.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. The court also considers provisions related to culpable homicide under Section 299 and Section 304 of the IPC.

• Section 302, IPC: Specifies the punishment for murder, which can be either death or life imprisonment, along with a fine.
• Section 299, IPC: Defines culpable homicide as causing death (a) with the intention of causing death, (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
• Section 300, IPC: Defines murder as culpable homicide with specific conditions, such as the intention of causing death, knowledge that the act will likely cause death, or intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
• Section 304, IPC: Prescribes punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, divided into Part I (for acts done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death) and Part II (for acts done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or injury).

The court differentiates between murder and culpable homicide, noting that all murders are culpable homicides, but not all culpable homicides are murders. The distinction lies in the degree of intention and knowledge involved in the act causing death.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The primary argument was that the evidence of PW.3 (Jaspal) should not have been relied upon.
• Even if PW.3’s evidence was considered, the facts did not establish a case under Section 302 of the IPC.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court, arguing that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was appropriate based on the evidence presented.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The primary argument was that the evidence of PW.3 (Jaspal) should not have been relied upon.
• Even if PW.3’s evidence was considered, the facts did not establish a case under Section 302 of the IPC.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court, arguing that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was appropriate based on the evidence presented.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The primary argument was that the evidence of PW.3 (Jaspal) should not have been relied upon.
• Even if PW.3’s evidence was considered, the facts did not establish a case under Section 302 of the IPC.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court, arguing that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was appropriate based on the evidence presented.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the evidence of PW.3 should be relied upon.
2. Whether the facts of the case establish an offense under Section 302 IPC.
3. Which is the appropriate provision of the IPC to be applied in this case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions to differentiate between murder and culpable homicide.

Judgment

“How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?” in TABLE

“How each authority was viewed by the Court?”

• Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kerala, (AIR 1966 SC 1874): Cited as an illustration for cases falling under clause (3) of Section 300 IPC.
• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1958 SC 465): Extensively quoted to explain the meaning and scope of clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, emphasizing the objective assessment of bodily injury and the intention to inflict that particular injury.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr. (1976 (4) SCC 382), Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (JT 2002 (6) SC 274), Augustine Saldanha v. State of Karnataka (2003 (10) SCC 472), Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005 (9) SCC 650) and Sunder Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2007 (10) SCC 371): Cited to highlight the position of law regarding the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to modify the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC was influenced by several factors. The court carefully analyzed the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW.3, and considered the circumstances surrounding the death of Jashu Devi. The court also emphasized the importance of distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, highlighting that the intention and knowledge of the accused are critical in determining the appropriate charge.

“Fact:Law”: Create ratio table for showing the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide. Fact is defined as “percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case” and Law is defined as “percentage of legal considerations”.

The court’s decision was more heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, such as the credibility of witnesses and the specific circumstances of the incident, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the evidence, the circumstances, and the legal provisions to arrive at its decision. The court’s reasoning involved a step-by-step analysis of the facts and the law, leading to the modification of the conviction.

Key Takeaways

• The distinction between murder (Section 302 IPC) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC) is critical and depends on the intention and knowledge of the accused.
• The credibility of witnesses and the specific circumstances of the incident play a significant role in determining the appropriate conviction.
• Even if there is evidence of culpable homicide, the court must carefully examine whether the facts support a charge of murder or a lesser offense.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases where the intention to commit murder is not clearly established, and the act causing death can be classified as culpable homicide, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part-I IPC rather than Section 302 IPC. This reaffirms the importance of distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Conclusion

In Budhi Lal v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court modified the conviction of Budhi Lal from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC, reducing the sentence to 10 years of custodial imprisonment. The decision underscores the necessity of carefully distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide based on the evidence and circumstances presented.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 299, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Law
  • Culpable Homicide
  • Murder
  • Criminal Procedure Code

FAQ

1. What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?

   Murder involves a higher degree of intention and knowledge to cause death, while culpable homicide may involve less intention or knowledge. The distinction is critical in determining the appropriate charge and punishment.

2. What factors does the court consider when deciding between Section 302 and Section 304 of the IPC?

   The court considers the intention of the accused, the nature of the injury inflicted, the circumstances surrounding the death, and the credibility of witnesses.

3. What was the final decision in the Budhi Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand case?

   The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC, sentencing Budhi Lal to 10 years of custodial imprisonment.