Supreme Court Modifies Conviction in Murder Case: Velthepu Srinivas vs. State of Telangana (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 6th February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 87

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can an individual be held equally culpable for murder if their actions and intentions differ from the other accused involved in the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving multiple accused persons, each with varying degrees of participation in a fatal assault. This judgment delves into the nuances of shared intention and individual culpability in criminal law. The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction of three accused for murder, modified the conviction of one of the accused to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Case Background

The case revolves around a tragic incident stemming from political rivalry in the village of Janda Venkatpur, Asifabad, Telangana. The sister of the deceased and the wife of Accused No. 4 (A-4) were political aspirants who contested Gram Panchayat elections. The deceased’s sister won, while A-4’s wife lost, leading to animosity between the two groups.

On November 15, 2001, at approximately 8:00 AM, the deceased was traveling in an auto-rickshaw to Luxettipet. Co-passengers included Sanga Swamy (PW-6) and Smt. Chetimala Rajitha (PW-9). When the auto-rickshaw reached A-4’s house, Accused No. 1 (A-1) allegedly stopped the vehicle and dragged the deceased out. A-2 joined A-1, and together they dragged the deceased towards A-4’s house. There, A-1 to A-4 attacked the deceased with an axe, sword, stone, and knife, causing fatal injuries that led to his death on the spot.

The deceased’s son, Kona Kiran Kumar (PW-1), witnessed the incident and reported it to the police at 9 PM the same day.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found all four accused guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court initially acquitted all the accused, but this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration. After remand, the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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.”
• Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It 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 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

The arguments in the case centered on the degree of participation and intention of each accused, particularly Accused No. 3 (A-3).

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants (Accused)

• The primary argument was that not all accused shared a common intention to commit murder. Specifically, A-3’s actions were distinct from the other accused.
• A-3 only used a stone, while the other accused used more lethal weapons like an axe and sword.
• There was no evidence that A-3 came with a common intention with the other accused.
• The High Court and Trial Court did not focus on the role of A-3 as evidenced by the oral and documentary evidence.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent (State)

• The State argued that all accused were equally culpable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as they all participated in the assault.
• The eye-witness accounts were consistent in identifying all accused as participants in the crime.
• The High Court and Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and law.

The following table demonstrates the sub-submissions categorized by main submissions of all sides pertaining to the issue:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was justified, considering the differing roles and intentions of each accused, particularly A-3?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Camilo Vaz v. State of Goa, (2000) 9 SCC 1: The Supreme Court referred to this case to explain the difference between Section 302 and Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court in this case held that Section 304 Part II applies when an act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Bawa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 754: This case was cited as an example where the court considered the lack of medical evidence to prove that the act/injury was individually sufficient to cause death as a factor to commute a sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC.
• Sarup Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 16 SCC 479: This case was cited as an example where the court considered a single blow on the head with a hammer as a factor to commute a sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC.
• Ghana Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 451: This case was cited as an example where the court considered lack of cogent evidence of the eye- witnesses that the accused shared a common intention to commit murder as a factor to commute a sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The following table demonstrates which authority was considered by the court and how:

Judgment

The following table demonstrates how each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court:

The following table demonstrates how each authority was viewed by the Court:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of A-1, A-2, and A-4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the Court modified the conviction of A-3, holding him guilty under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court reasoned that while A-3 did participate in the assault, his actions and intent differed from the other accused. Specifically, A-3 only used a stone, did not wield the axe, and there was no evidence to prove that he came along with the other accused with the common intention to commit murder.

The court emphasized that the cause of death was primarily due to the injuries inflicted by the axe, which was not used by A-3. The Court found that A-3 should have had the knowledge that hitting the deceased on the head with a stone was likely to cause death, but there was no evidence to conclude that he shared a common intention to commit murder. Therefore, A-3 was convicted under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Differing Roles: The Court meticulously examined the specific actions of each accused. It noted that while A-1, A-2, and A-4 used lethal weapons like an axe and sword, A-3 only used a stone.
• Lack of Common Intention: The Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that A-3 shared a common intention with the other accused to commit murder. The court noted that A-3 did not wield the axe, which was the primary cause of death.
• Post-Mortem Report: The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was primarily due to injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons, particularly the axe, which was not used by A-3.
• Knowledge vs. Intention: The Court distinguished between the knowledge that A-3 had that his actions were likely to cause death and the intention to commit murder. The court found that A-3 had the knowledge but not the intention.

The following table demonstrates the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court as to what weighed in the mind of the court to come to the conclusion with the various points emphasised in the reasoning portion:

The following table demonstrates the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the specific roles of each accused. The Court emphasized that the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC requires a shared intention among all the accused to commit the crime. In this case, the court found that while A-3 participated in the assault, his actions and intent were different from the other accused and therefore, he could not be convicted for murder.

The Court rejected the argument that A-3 should be held equally culpable for murder simply because he was present at the scene of the crime and was related to the other accused. The Court emphasized that each individual’s actions and intentions must be assessed separately.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with Justice B.R. Gavai concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving multiple accused persons. It highlights the importance of examining the individual roles and intentions of each accused, rather than simply relying on the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The atlant o occipital joint is at the back of the neck , which is the exact place where A-1 assaulted the deceased with the help of an axe.”

“Considering the statements of the eye- witnesses, coupled with the post -mortem report, it is not possible to contend that A -3 would have had the intention to commit the murder of the deceased and as such , he cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC.”

“Even though, A -3 might not have had the common intention to commit the murder, nevertheless, his participation in the assault and the wielding of the stone certainly makes him culpable for the offence that he has committed.”

Key Takeaways

• Individual Culpability: The judgment underscores the principle that each accused person’s actions and intentions must be assessed individually in criminal cases.
• Common Intention: The principle of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC requires a shared intention among all the accused to commit the crime. Mere presence at the scene of the crime or familial relations with the other accused is not sufficient to establish common intention.
• Distinction between Knowledge and Intention: The judgment highlights the distinction between the knowledge that an act is likely to cause death and the intention to commit murder.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving multiple accused persons, emphasizing the need for a careful analysis of individual roles and intentions.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving multiple accused, the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 requires a shared intention among all the accused to commit the crime. Each accused must have the same intention to commit the crime, and the mere presence at the scene of the crime or familial relations with the other accused is not sufficient to establish a common intention.

This judgment does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the application of Section 34 in cases where the actions and intentions of the accused differ. The Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that each accused person’s actions and intentions must be assessed individually.

Conclusion

In the case of Velthepu Srinivas and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) and Anr., the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of A-1, A-2, and A-4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for murder. However, the Court modified the conviction of A-3 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, holding him guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentencing him to 10 years imprisonment. This judgment highlights the importance of assessing individual culpability and intention in criminal cases, particularly when multiple accused persons are involved.