Supreme Court reduces conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide: Parshuram vs. State of M.P. (2023) INSC 973

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 3, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 973

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. The judgment was authored by B.R. Gavai, J.

When can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the prosecution failed to explain injuries sustained by the accused and the intention of the unlawful assembly was not clear. The court examined the circumstances under which a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. This judgment highlights the importance of establishing the common object of an unlawful assembly and the necessity of explaining injuries on the accused.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute where the appellant, Jalim Singh, had constructed a shed on a village passage. When a buffalo belonging to the complainant’s party damaged the shed, Jalim Singh beat the buffalo. Following this, Jalim Singh, along with other accused, went to the house of Chironji (PW-6), a member of the complainant party. Chironji fled, and the accused allegedly broke into his house and assaulted Madan, Leelabai, and Kailash.

On October 6, 2001, while Chironji (PW-6), Madan (deceased), and others were on their way to the police station to file a complaint, they were ambushed by the accused, who were armed with weapons. During this attack, Madan was fatally stabbed, and other members of the complainant party sustained injuries. The initial FIR was registered under Sections 307, 323, 452, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC, which was later converted to Section 302 of the IPC after Madan’s death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted seven accused, including Parshuram and Jalim Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 326 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149, Section 147, and Section 148 of the IPC. The trial court held that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and grievously assaulted the complainant and his family, resulting in Madan’s death.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dismissed the appeals filed by the accused and upheld the trial court’s judgment and order of conviction. The High Court affirmed that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly that caused the death of Madan.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302, IPC: 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 149, IPC: This section deals with the concept of common object of an unlawful assembly. It states, “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.”
• Section 304, IPC: This section deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part II of Section 304 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

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to attribute any specific role to them in the assault that led to Madan’s death.
• It was submitted that the role attributed to Parshuram was only holding a lathi, and no injuries causing death were attributed to him.
• The appellants highlighted that two accused persons, who were attributed the role of holding hand-bombs, were acquitted by the trial court.
• The appellants contended that the prosecution did not explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons.
• The appellants argued that the FIR lodged by the accused persons against the complainant party was prior in time, suggesting that the complainant party initiated the violence.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The respondent argued that the trial court and the High Court had concurrently found the prosecution’s case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• It was submitted that since the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly, it was not necessary to attribute a specific role to each of them.
• The respondent argued that the object of the unlawful assembly was to kill the members of the complainant party.
• The respondent highlighted that the injuries sustained by the deceased were on vital parts and caused with deadly weapons.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in their reliance on the non-explanation of injuries on the accused, which was used to cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. Whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is sustainable when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and when the common object of the unlawful assembly to cause death is not clearly established.

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?

• Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964] 8 SCR 133: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that every member of an unlawful assembly need not have a specific role for conviction under Section 149 of the IPC.
• Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of explaining injuries on the accused, especially when the prosecution’s witnesses are interested or inimical.
• State of Rajasthan v. Madho and Another 1991 Supp (2) SCC 396: The Court cited this case to support the view that non-explanation of injuries on the accused creates doubt about the prosecution’s version of the incident.
• State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others (2003) 9 SCC 426: This case was used to reinforce the principle that the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries on the accused can be a significant infirmity in the prosecution’s case.
• Nagarathinam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 9 SCC 57: The Court referred to this case to reiterate the importance of explaining injuries on the accused and how it can affect the credibility of the prosecution.
• Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 262: The Court relied on this recent judgment to emphasize that non-explanation of injuries on the accused is fatal to the prosecution case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Non-Explanation of Injuries: The prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused was a critical factor. The Court emphasized that this omission created doubt about the prosecution’s narrative and suggested a possible suppression of the true genesis of the incident.
• Lack of Clear Common Object: The Court found that the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had the specific intention to cause the death of the deceased. The initial dispute was related to a damaged shed, and the subsequent assembly might have been intended to teach a lesson rather than to kill.
• Interested Witnesses: The Court noted that the prosecution’s witnesses were interested and inimical, which made the non-explanation of injuries on the accused even more significant.
• Cross Case: The fact that a cross-case was registered against the complainant party for injuries sustained by the accused further supported the defence’s argument that a free fight had occurred, and the prosecution’s version was not entirely accurate.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is shown in the table below:

Fact:Law Ratio

The ratio of fact to law in the Court’s decision is as follows:

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual aspects of the case, such as the non-explanation of injuries and the lack of clear evidence of common intention, while legal principles were applied to interpret these facts.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the accused persons had the common object to cause death, but rejected it due to lack of evidence. The Court concluded that the circumstances of the case pointed towards a free fight where the accused did not have the specific intention to cause death, leading to the alteration of the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Court reasoned that while the appellants were part of the unlawful assembly, the prosecution failed to prove that the assembly had the intention to cause death. The Court found that the incident could have been a result of a sudden fight where the intention was to teach a lesson rather than to kill.

The Court’s reasoning is supported by the following quotes from the judgment:

• “The non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version.”
• “From the material placed on record, it is also not clear as to whether the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of the deceased or not.”
• “It is quite possible that the accused persons did not have an intention to cause death of anybody from the complainant party. It is possible that the accused persons only assembled to teach a lesson to the complainant party…”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Explaining Injuries on Accused: The prosecution must explain injuries sustained by the accused during the incident. Failure to do so can lead to doubts about the prosecution’s case, especially when witnesses are interested or inimical.
• Proving Common Object: For a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had the common object to cause death.
• Alteration of Conviction: If the common intention to cause death is not established, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment reinforces the importance of a thorough investigation and presentation of evidence by the prosecution. It also emphasizes the need for courts to carefully consider the circumstances of the case, including the injuries sustained by the accused, before upholding a conviction for murder.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was altered to Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.
• The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and the common object of the unlawful assembly to cause death is not clearly established, a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC is not sustainable. The conviction can be altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the importance of explaining injuries on the accused and the necessity of proving the common object of an unlawful assembly. The Court has not changed the position of law but has applied it to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this case, altered the conviction of the appellants from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and the lack of clear evidence of a common intention to cause death were critical factors in its decision. This judgment highlights the importance of a thorough investigation and the need for the prosecution to present a complete and accurate version of events.