LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in modifying the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and acquitting some of the accused.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: State of Karnataka vs. Yenkareddy & Ors.
Judgment Date: 6th September 2018
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 6th September 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 789
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a conviction for murder be modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the nature of the weapons used and the circumstances of the case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning a fatal assault. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction of some accused from murder to culpable homicide and acquitting others. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee.
Case Background
On January 29, 1995, Siddaramreddy, the deceased, went to his field with his wife, Annapoornama (PW-3), and daughter, Tayamma (PW-4), to watch over their harvested crops. The accused, Yenkareddy and others, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Siddaramreddy with clubs, leading to his death. The prosecution alleged that all the accused were responsible for the murder.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 29, 1995 | Siddaramreddy was attacked in his field and died. |
| Trial Court Judgement | Accused No. 1 was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Accused No(s). 2 to 5 and 7 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. |
| High Court Judgement | The High Court acquitted accused No(s). 4 and 5. Conviction of accused No(s). 1, 2, 3, and 7 was modified to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. |
| September 6, 2018 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court found accused No. 1 guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. Accused No(s). 2 to 5 and 7 were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC (unlawful assembly). On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Karnataka acquitted accused No(s). 4 and 5, citing a lack of specific overt acts attributed to them. The High Court modified the conviction of accused No(s). 1, 2, 3, and 7 from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), reducing their sentences. The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal and modification of convictions.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
-
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” -
Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part II of this section 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 grievous hurt.
“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, 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.” -
Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly.
“If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
Arguments
The State of Karnataka, as the appellant, argued that the High Court erred in modifying the conviction of the accused from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. The State contended that the trial court’s initial conviction was correct and should not have been altered. The State also challenged the acquittal of accused No(s). 4 and 5.
The respondents, initially represented by counsel, were unrepresented during the final hearing as their counsel had become the standing counsel for the State of Karnataka. The respondents’ defense, as inferred from the High Court’s judgment, was that they did not have the intention to cause death and that only accused No. 1 had a prior enmity with the deceased. The other accused were said to have joined accused No. 1 to help him.
The High Court’s reasoning for modifying the conviction was based on the nature of the weapons used (sticks) and the injuries inflicted, suggesting that the accused did not have the intention to cause death.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Conviction under Section 302 IPC was correct | Trial Court’s conviction should be upheld | State of Karnataka |
| High Court erred in modifying the conviction | State of Karnataka | |
| Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was correct | Accused No. 1 had prior enmity with the deceased | Accused |
| Other accused joined accused No. 1 to help him | Accused | |
| Weapons used were sticks, indicating no intention to cause death | Accused | |
| Acquittal of Accused No(s). 4 and 5 was incorrect | All accused were part of unlawful assembly | State of Karnataka |
| All accused should be held liable under Section 149 IPC | State of Karnataka | |
| Acquittal of Accused No(s). 4 and 5 was correct | No specific overt act attributed to accused No(s). 4 and 5 | Accused |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues can be inferred from the judgment:
- Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting accused No(s). 4 and 5.
- Whether the High Court was correct in modifying the conviction of accused No(s). 1, 2, 3, and 7 from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting accused No(s). 4 and 5. | Upheld the acquittal. | The High Court found that no specific overt act was attributed to accused No(s). 4 and 5. The Supreme Court considered this to be reasonable. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in modifying the conviction of accused No(s). 1, 2, 3, and 7 from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. | Upheld the modification. | The High Court considered that only accused No. 1 had previous enmity with the deceased and the other accused joined to help him. The weapons used were sticks, and the High Court thought it fit to modify the sentence to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The Supreme Court also noted the passage of time since the incident. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
- Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Offence committed by member of unlawful assembly.
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws in its judgment.
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Discussed and distinguished from Section 304 Part II IPC. |
| Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Applied to modify the conviction. |
| Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Discussed in relation to the liability of the accused. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The State of Karnataka argued that the High Court erred in modifying the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. | The Supreme Court did not agree with the State and upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the High Court’s reasoning was valid given the nature of the weapons used and the circumstances of the case. |
| The State of Karnataka argued that the High Court erred in acquitting accused No(s). 4 and 5. | The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting that no specific overt act was attributed to accused No(s). 4 and 5. |
| The accused argued that they did not have the intention to cause death, and that only accused No. 1 had prior enmity with the deceased. | The Supreme Court accepted this argument, as it was the basis of the High Court’s decision to modify the conviction to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. |
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. The court agreed with the High Court’s view that since the weapons used were sticks and there was no clear intention to cause death, the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not appropriate. The court noted that only accused No.1 had a previous enmity with the deceased, and the other accused seemed to have joined him to help him. The Supreme Court also took into account the fact that the incident occurred in 1995 and a significant amount of time had passed.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Nature of the Weapons: The fact that sticks were used as weapons indicated that the accused may not have had the intention to cause death.
- Lack of Specific Overt Acts: The High Court’s finding that no specific overt acts were attributed to accused No(s). 4 and 5 was a significant factor in their acquittal.
- Previous Enmity: The fact that only accused No. 1 had previous enmity with the deceased suggested that the other accused may not have shared the same intention to cause death.
- Passage of Time: The incident occurred in 1995, and the court took into account the considerable time that had passed since the incident.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Nature of Weapons | 30% |
| Lack of Specific Overt Acts | 25% |
| Previous Enmity | 25% |
| Passage of Time | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court’s decision highlights several key points:
- ✓ The importance of attributing specific overt acts to each accused in cases of unlawful assembly.
- ✓ The distinction between murder (Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) is crucial, especially concerning the intention to cause death.
- ✓ The nature of weapons used and the circumstances of the case play a significant role in determining the appropriate charge and conviction.
- ✓ The passage of time can be a factor considered by the courts.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the nature of the weapons used and the circumstances of the case are crucial in determining whether an act constitutes murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. The court emphasized the importance of proving the intention to cause death for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. This case also reinforces that in cases of unlawful assembly, each accused must have specific overt acts attributed to them in order to be held guilty under Section 149 of the IPC.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit accused No(s). 4 and 5 and modify the conviction of accused No(s). 1, 2, 3, and 7 from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized the importance of specific overt acts and the intention to cause death in determining criminal liability.