Supreme Court reduces conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Kala Singh vs. State of Punjab (21 September 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 September 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 620

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

When does a fight cross the line from a simple scuffle to a serious crime? The Supreme Court of India recently examined a case where a sudden quarrel led to a death, focusing on whether the accused should be convicted for culpable homicide amounting to murder or for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case highlights the difference between these two offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, delivered the judgment. The court modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that the fight was sudden and without premeditation.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident where the appellant, Kala Singh, and the deceased, Shamber Singh, had a sudden altercation. The dispute arose because the appellant believed that the deceased had stolen his pigeon. In the heat of the argument, a co-accused, Kehar Singh, struck the deceased on the head with a rod, leading to his death. Following the incident, the appellant and the co-accused disposed of the body in a nearby canal.

Initially, the trial court charged the co-accused under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while the appellant was charged under Sections 302/34 (murder with common intention) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court convicted both of them and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

On appeal, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana modified the conviction, determining that the fight was not premeditated but occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellant and the co-accused from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant and co-accused under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court, upon appeal, modified the conviction to Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court reasoned that the incident occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302 of the 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 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It has two parts:
  • Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This part addresses cases where the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This part applies when 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 34 of the 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 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. It states, “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that there was no intention to kill the deceased.
• The appellant contended that the incident occurred due to a sudden fight in the heat of passion after a quarrel over a stolen pigeon, and that the appellant, co-accused and the deceased had consumed liquor.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court should have modified the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, instead of Section 304 Part I, given the circumstances.
• The appellant relied on the judgment in Uday Singh v. State of U.P. to support the argument that the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The appellant requested a reduction in sentence, as he had already served more than three years.

State of Punjab’s Submissions:

• The State of Punjab argued that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.
• The State contended that sufficient leniency had already been shown to the appellant.
• The State argued that the case law relied upon by the appellant was distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case.

The innovativeness of the argument of the appellant was that the incident occurred due to a sudden fight in the heat of passion after a quarrel over a stolen pigeon, and that the appellant, co-accused and the deceased had consumed liquor.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in modifying the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or whether the conviction should be further modified to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Uday Singh v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 79]* where the conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in a case of sudden fight without intention to kill.

✓ The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Shahajan Ali & Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. etc. [(2017) 11 SC 807]* which held that if there was neither prior concert nor common intention to commit a murder, and the fight was sudden, the accused would be liable for conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to modify the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Lack of Intention: The court emphasized that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Sudden Fight: The incident occurred during a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel, and was not a premeditated act.
• Consumption of Liquor: The court noted that the appellant, co-accused, and deceased had consumed liquor, which contributed to the sudden quarrel.
• Precedents: The court relied on the judgments in Uday Singh v. State of U.P. and Shahajan Ali & Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. etc., which supported the modification of conviction to Section 304 Part II in similar cases.

The court’s reasoning was that the facts of the case indicated a sudden quarrel without any premeditation or intention to cause death. The court also considered the legal precedents, which supported the modification of conviction to Section 304 Part II in similar cases.

The court considered the alternative interpretation of maintaining the conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but rejected it. The court reasoned that the facts of the case clearly indicated that the incident was a result of a sudden fight without any intention to cause death.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• There was no intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• The fight was sudden and occurred in the heat of passion.
• The legal precedents supported the modification of conviction to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in similar cases.

The court quoted the following from the judgment to support the reasoning:

“It is clear from the evidence and other material placed on record that there was no intention to kill the deceased Shamber Singh.”

“It is clear from the evidence on record that the scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.”

“In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, we are of the view that it is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 Part II IPC…”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench comprised of two judges, both of whom concurred on the final judgment.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving sudden fights leading to death. It clarifies that in cases where there is no intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This distinction is crucial in determining the appropriate punishment for the accused.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reaffirmed the existing legal principles related to culpable homicide and applied them to the facts of the case. The court’s analysis focused on the distinction between intention and knowledge, and how this distinction affects the categorization of the offense.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ In cases of sudden fights without premeditation and without the intention to cause death, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ The presence of a sudden quarrel and the absence of intention to cause death are crucial factors in determining whether the offense falls under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ The consumption of liquor can be a contributing factor in sudden quarrels, but it does not automatically lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ Legal precedents play a significant role in determining the outcome of similar cases.

The judgment clarifies the distinction between Section 304 Part I and Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It emphasizes that the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is necessary for a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the absence of such intention, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This distinction is crucial for the administration of justice in cases involving culpable homicide.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 Part I/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to Section 304 Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and the fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the High Court was maintained. The conviction for the offense under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- were also maintained.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of sudden fights without premeditation and without the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the distinction between Section 304 Part I and Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It does not introduce a new principle of law but clarifies the application of existing principles to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

In the case of Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that the incident occurred during a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The Court relied on previous judgments and the facts of the case to come to its decision. The appellant’s sentence was modified to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, while the conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was maintained.