Supreme Court reduces conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Major Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 16 June 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 561

Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J. and Vikram Nath, J.

Can a single blow with a non-dangerous weapon, during a heated argument, constitute murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused, after a quarrel, struck his uncle with a wooden cot leg, resulting in the uncle’s death. The court had to determine whether the act was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Vikram Nath delivered the judgment, modifying the High Court’s decision.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred over two days. On July 20, 1998, Major Singh (the appellant) had a heated argument with his uncle, Makhan Singh (the deceased), during which Makhan Singh reprimanded him severely. The next day, July 21, 1998, at approximately 10:30/11:00 AM, Makhan Singh was on his way to the village bus stand when Major Singh confronted him. Major Singh, carrying a wooden ‘Bahi’ (a wooden side of a cot frame), abused Makhan Singh for the previous day’s incident and threatened him. He then struck Makhan Singh on the head with the ‘Bahi’, causing him to fall. Major Singh fled the scene, while Makhan Singh was rushed to the hospital by his sons, Sukhraj Singh (the complainant) and Charanjit Singh. Makhan Singh’s condition worsened, and he was referred to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, where he died on July 22, 1998, due to his injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted Major Singh, citing delays in filing the FIR, lack of a strong motive, and inconsistencies in witness statements. The State of Punjab and the complainant then appealed to the High Court. The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, convicting Major Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stating that the trial court had misread the evidence. The High Court reasoned that the delay in filing the FIR was justified by the need to rush the victim to the hospital, and the eyewitness accounts were credible. Major Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions in question are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 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 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It has two parts:
  • Part I: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the act is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Part II: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder where 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 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines culpable homicide.

“Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines murder.

“Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—Secondly—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—Thirdly—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—Fourthly—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the case should not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but rather under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The appellant contended that there was no intention to kill the deceased. The incident happened due to a sudden quarrel, and the weapon used was not inherently dangerous.
• The appellant highlighted that he gave only a single blow, suggesting a lack of intention to cause death.
• The appellant argued that the events unfolded in the heat of the moment, and there was no premeditation.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The prosecution argued that the High Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The prosecution emphasized that the appellant had a motive due to the previous day’s quarrel and that he intentionally hit the deceased on the head with a wooden ‘Bahi’.
• The prosecution relied on the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence to establish the appellant’s guilt.
• The prosecution argued that the nature of the injury and the weapon used were sufficient to prove the intention to cause death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the case falls within the ambit of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Mohd. Rafiq vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2021) 10 SCC 706]* to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the subtle differences in intention and knowledge.
• The Court also cited State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr.* to highlight that culpable homicide is the genus, and murder is its specie.
• The Court also relied on Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh* to outline the considerations for determining whether an act is punishable as murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder was influenced by several factors. The Court emphasized the lack of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Court noted that the appellant was provoked by the previous day’s reprimand and acted in the heat of the moment. The single blow with a non-dangerous weapon further suggested a lack of intent to cause death.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on a mix of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual aspects, such as the nature of the weapon, the single blow, and the sudden quarrel, heavily influenced the Court’s decision. The legal considerations included the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the precedents set by previous judgments.

The Court considered arguments for murder, but ultimately rejected them because the facts did not support the intention to cause death. The Court reasoned that the appellant’s actions, while resulting in death, did not meet the threshold for murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court concluded that the appellant had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death, thereby falling under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The decision was based on the following reasoning:

• The appellant had no intention to kill his uncle.
• The appellant was provoked by the previous day’s reprimand.
• The weapon used was not inherently dangerous.
• The appellant gave only a single blow.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC, or culpable homicide, of either description, punishable under Section 304 IPC has engaged the attention of courts in this country for over one and a half century…”
• “It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both, involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. This difference lies in the degree of the act.”
• “In the present case, the appellant had no intention to kill his uncle. Lack of intention can easily be seen through the acts committed by the appellant.”

There was no minority opinion. The bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving similar circumstances. It clarifies the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the importance of intent and the nature of the weapon used. The Court’s analysis of the facts and the application of legal principles provide a clear framework for determining the appropriate charge in cases of homicide.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing legal framework for distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide.

Key Takeaways

• A single blow with a non-dangerous weapon during a sudden quarrel may not constitute murder.
• The intention to cause death is a crucial element in determining whether an act is murder or culpable homicide.
• The nature of the weapon used and the circumstances surrounding the incident are important factors in determining the appropriate charge.
• The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the subtle differences between murder and culpable homicide, highlighting the importance of intent and knowledge.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s sentence be reduced from life imprisonment to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the High Court was to remain as it is. The appellant was to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other criminal case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases where the accused inflicts a single blow with a non-dangerous weapon during a sudden quarrel, and there is no intention to cause death, the conviction should be for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This decision clarifies the application of the law in such cases and emphasizes the importance of intent in determining the nature of the offense. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the existing legal principles for distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, without introducing any new legal doctrines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment, reducing the conviction of Major Singh from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized the absence of intent to cause death, the nature of the weapon, and the circumstances of the incident. This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide based on intent and knowledge.