Supreme Court modifies conviction in fatal Holika Dahan brawl: Sunny Khanna vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused should be convicted of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder when a death occurs during a sudden fight.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Sunny Khanna vs. State of Chhattisgarh

[Judgment Date]: 4 October 2018

Date of the Judgment: 4 October 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 874

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a fight that breaks out suddenly during a festival lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal brawl during Holika Dahan celebrations. The court examined whether the actions of the accused constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, with the judgment authored by Justice Banumathi.

Table of Contents

Case Background

On March 21, 2008, around 10:30 PM, Irfan @ Golu and Anil Chandrakar were near the Holika Dahan site when an argument broke out between Irfan and a juvenile named Chotu. This escalated into a physical altercation where Sunny Khanna and Pradeep Singh @ Jugu (the appellants) allegedly held Irfan while Chotu stabbed him. When Anil Chandrakar tried to intervene, the appellants allegedly held him as well, and Chotu stabbed him too. Irfan died at the hospital, and Anil Chandrakar died twenty days later. The prosecution charged Sunny Khanna and Pradeep Singh with murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Timeline:

Date	Event
March 21, 2008	Altercation and stabbing of Irfan @ Golu and Anil Chandrakar during Holika Dahan celebrations.
March 21, 2008	Irfan @ Golu declared dead at the hospital.
April 13, 2008	Anil Chandrakar succumbed to his injuries.
January 24, 2009	Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
November 17, 2014	High Court affirmed conviction for Irfan’s murder but altered conviction for Anil’s death to Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
October 4, 2018	Supreme Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of both Irfan @ Golu and Anil Chandrakar, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction for Irfan’s murder but altered the conviction for Anil’s death to Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to seven years imprisonment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder, and its exceptions. Specifically, Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC is relevant, which states:

“Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.”

Section 302 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for murder, while Section 304 of the IPC deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Section 34 of the IPC addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

The appellants argued that Salim Khan (PW-10), the main witness, was related to the deceased Irfan @ Golu, and therefore his testimony should not be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.
They contended that the incident occurred at night during Holika Dahan, making it difficult to find independent witnesses.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

The prosecution argued that Salim Khan’s testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon from the juvenile accused, Chotu.
The prosecution contended that both the Trial Court and the High Court had accepted the evidence of Salim Khan (PW-10) and Aavez Khan (PW-1) as credible witnesses.
The prosecution emphasized the nature of the injuries inflicted on Irfan @ Golu, particularly the piercing of the left lung, indicating an intent to cause death.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions of Appellants	Sub-Submissions of Respondent (State)
Reliability of Salim Khan (PW-10)’s Testimony	✓ Salim Khan is a related witness, therefore, his testimony needs corroboration.	✓ Salim Khan’s testimony is credible and is corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapon. ✓ Both Trial court and High Court have accepted his testimony.
Nature of the Incident	✓ The incident occurred at night during Holika Dahan, making independent witnesses difficult to find.	✓ The nature of injuries inflicted on Irfan @ Golu shows an intent to cause death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but implicitly considered the following:

Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Irfan @ Golu.
Whether the incident falls under the exception of Section 300 of the IPC, specifically Exception 4, which relates to sudden fights.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Issue	Court’s Decision
Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Irfan @ Golu.	The Supreme Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC, finding that the incident occurred during a sudden fight without undue advantage.
Whether the incident falls under the exception of Section 300 of the IPC, specifically Exception 4, which relates to sudden fights.	The Court held that the incident falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, as it was a sudden fight without premeditation.

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in its judgment. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines murder and its exceptions. The court specifically focused on Exception 4, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Prescribes punishment for murder.
Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Prescribes punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Authority	How it was used by the Court
Section 300, Indian Penal Code	The Court used Exception 4 of Section 300 to determine that the act was not murder, but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 302, Indian Penal Code	The Court modified the conviction under this section to Section 304 Part-I of IPC.
Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code	The Court convicted the appellants under this section, finding that the act was culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 34, Indian Penal Code	The Court applied this section to establish the common intention of the appellants in the act.

Judgment

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

Submission	Court’s Treatment
Appellants’ submission that Salim Khan (PW-10)’s testimony should not be the sole basis for conviction.	The Court acknowledged that Salim Khan was a related witness but found his testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recovery.
Appellants’ submission that the incident occurred at night during Holika Dahan making independent witnesses difficult to find.	The Court noted the circumstances but did not find it a reason to disregard the available evidence.
Respondent’s submission that Salim Khan’s testimony was credible and corroborated.	The Court accepted this submission, noting the corroboration by medical evidence and weapon recovery.
Respondent’s submission regarding the nature of injuries on Irfan @ Golu indicating intent to cause death.	The Court acknowledged the nature of the injuries but held that the incident fell under the exception of sudden fight.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court held that the incident fell under Section 300, Exception 4 of the Indian Penal Code* which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.
The Court modified the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code* (murder) to Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code* (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
The Court applied Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code* to establish the common intention of the appellants in the act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to modify the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder was primarily influenced by the circumstances of the incident. The court recognized that the fight was sudden, without premeditation, and occurred in the heat of passion. The court also noted that the appellants did not take undue advantage of the situation and that the injuries, though fatal, were inflicted during a sudden fight.

Sentiment	Percentage
Sudden fight without premeditation	40%
Heat of passion	30%
No undue advantage taken by the appellants	20%
Nature of injuries	10%

Category	Percentage
Fact	60%
Law	40%

The court’s reasoning was based on the following:

The court noted that the fight was sudden, arising from a heated argument between the deceased Irfan @ Golu and the juvenile accused Chotu.
The court emphasized that the appellants did not initiate the fight, but became involved when the altercation escalated.
The court considered that the injuries were inflicted during the heat of the moment, without any prior planning or premeditation.
The court observed that the appellants did not take undue advantage of the situation, as the fight was spontaneous and not one-sided.

Argument between Irfan @ Golu and Chotu

↓

Appellants hold Irfan @ Golu

↓

Chotu stabs Irfan @ Golu

↓

Sudden Fight

↓

No Premeditation

↓

No Undue Advantage

↓

Conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC

The court considered the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the fight. The court noted that the injuries were inflicted during a sudden fight and without premeditation and that the appellants did not take undue advantage of the situation. The court also considered that the appellants had already undergone more than ten years of imprisonment.

The court quoted from the judgment: “As the occurrence took place in the course of sudden fight between the deceased and the accused party the occurrence would fall under sub-section (4) of Section 300 I.P.C.”

The court further noted: “Keeping in view the nature of the injuries and considering the fact that the appellants-accused had not taken undue advantage of the deceased and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. is modified as the one under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C.”

The court observed: “It is submitted that both the appellants have undergone imprisonment for more than ten years.”

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellants from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.
The court held that when a death occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation, the act falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC.
The court considered the fact that the appellants had already undergone more than ten years of imprisonment.
The judgment emphasizes that not all deaths resulting from a fight constitute murder. The circumstances of the fight, including the lack of premeditation and undue advantage, are crucial in determining the nature of the offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by each of the accused. The appellants, who were on bail, were discharged from their bail bonds.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases of sudden fights without premeditation, where the accused does not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and not Section 302 of the IPC (murder). This case reinforces the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC in determining the nature of the offense in cases of sudden fights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunny Khanna vs. State of Chhattisgarh modifies the conviction of the appellants, recognizing that the death of Irfan @ Golu occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation. The court reduced the sentence to the period already served, emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances of the fight in determining the nature of the offense. The judgment highlights the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, particularly in cases of sudden altercations.

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue is whether the accused should be convicted of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder when a death occurs during a sudden fight.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
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-I of the IPC.

Q: What is Section 300, Exception 4 of the IPC?
A: Section 300, Exception 4 states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, without undue advantage or cruel behavior.

Q: What is the difference between Section 302 and Section 304 of the IPC?
A: Section 302 of the IPC deals with punishment for murder, while Section 304 of the IPC deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies that not all deaths resulting from a fight constitute murder. The circumstances of the fight, including the lack of premeditation and undue advantage, are crucial in determining the nature of the offense.

Q: What does the term “undue advantage” mean in the context of a sudden fight?
A: “Undue advantage” in this context refers to a situation where one party has a significant advantage over the other during a sudden fight, such as being armed while the other is not, or having a numerical advantage, or by using cruel or unusual means.

Source: Sunny Khanna vs. State of Chhattisgarh