Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Goverdhan & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025)

Date of the Judgment: January 9, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 47
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide if the intention to kill is not definitively proven? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, modifying the conviction of two appellants from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment clarifies the importance of establishing intent in murder cases and the nuances of culpable homicide. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan, and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, with the judgment authored by Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on September 23, 2001, at approximately 7:00 AM. Santosh Kumar Mandle (PW-6), an employee at the house of Shatrughan Sharma (PW-5) and Lata Bai (PW-10), heard cries for help from Suraj, the deceased. Upon investigating, Santosh witnessed Goverdhan and Rajendra, along with their father Chintaram, assaulting Suraj with an axe and an iron pipe. Chintaram was also seen kicking and punching Suraj, urging his sons to kill him. Santosh immediately informed Suraj’s parents, Shatrughan and Lata Bai, about the assault. An FIR was lodged by Santosh at 7:30 AM on the same day under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was later converted to Section 302 IPC after Suraj succumbed to his injuries on September 25, 2001.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, convicted all three accused, Goverdhan, Rajendra, and Chintaram, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. In a statutory appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur upheld the conviction of Goverdhan and Rajendra but acquitted Chintaram, giving him the benefit of doubt. The High Court noted that there was no clinching evidence of Chintaram’s participation in the assault. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges the High Court’s judgment upholding the conviction of Goverdhan and Rajendra.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections 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 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with 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 intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines 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.”

The legal framework involves determining whether the actions of the appellants constitute murder (Section 302) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304). The court also considers the principle of common intention (Section 34) in assessing the liability of the accused.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• Parity in Acquittal: The appellants argued that since their father, Chintaram, was acquitted on the same set of evidence, they should also be acquitted on the ground of parity. They contended that there was no material difference in the evidence against all three accused.
• Uncorroborated Testimony: They argued that the conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of Lata Bai (PW-10), the mother of the deceased, who was an interested witness.
• Doubtful Witness: They claimed that Lata Bai could not have been an eyewitness because Santosh (PW-6) stated in the FIR that he informed the parents of the incident, indicating she arrived after the assault.
• Delayed Statement: The appellants pointed out that Lata Bai’s statement was recorded five days after the incident, and the prosecution failed to explain this delay, making her testimony unreliable. They cited State of Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda, (1976) 4 SCC 288, where a delay in mentioning the names of the accused was considered fatal.
• Lack of Intervention: The appellants argued that if the parents were present, they would have intervened to save their son. Their failure to do so suggests they did not witness the incident, citing State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, (2003) 3 SCC 153, where a father’s inaction was considered doubtful.
• Improvements in Testimony: The appellants contended that there were improvements and embellishments in Lata Bai’s testimony, making her evidence unreliable.
• Hostile Witnesses: They highlighted that almost all non-official prosecution witnesses, except the mother, turned hostile, including the informant Santosh (PW-6) and seizure witnesses.

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• Admissible Evidence: The prosecution argued that the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court and the High Court were based on admissible and relevant evidence, and there was no perversity in the findings.
• Belated Statement: They contended that the delay in recording Lata Bai’s statement was not fatal, as her name was mentioned in the FIR filed by Santosh (PW-6) shortly after the incident. They cited State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, stating that a delay in witness examination is not fatal if plausible explanations are offered.
• Corroborating Evidence: The prosecution argued that there was corroborating evidence to support Lata Bai’s testimony.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the two appellants should also be acquitted on the ground of parity since the third accused, their father, was acquitted on the same set of evidence.
2. Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of a sole eye witness, who is also an interested witness.
3. Whether the testimony of Lata Bai (PW-10) is reliable, considering her statement was recorded after 5 days of the incident and there were alleged improvements and contradictions in her testimony.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 253:* The Court used this case to emphasize that it should not interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless there is a clear error or miscarriage of justice.
• State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114:* The Court applied this precedent to justify that the delay in recording the statement of Lata Bai (PW-10) was not fatal, as there was a plausible explanation for the delay.
• State of Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda, (1976) 4 SCC 288:* The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts were different and the delay in the present case was explained by the circumstances.
• State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, (2003) 3 SCC 153:* The Court distinguished this case, noting that in the present case, the father did not witness the assault and hence, his inaction was not relevant.
• Bable v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 11 SCC 181:* The Court used this case to support the evidentiary value of the FIR, even when the complainant turned hostile.
• Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395:* The Court used this case to define the concept of “reasonable doubt.”
• State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96:* The Court relied on this case to discuss the concept of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793:* The Court referred to this case to emphasize the need for a balanced approach between the benefit of doubt and social defense.
• Miller v. Miller of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372:* The Court quoted this case to clarify that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any doubt.
• Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525:* The Court used this case to state that minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts should not affect the credibility of the evidence.
• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217:* The Court relied on this case to caution against attaching too much importance to minor discrepancies.
• Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) Supp SCC 241:* The Court used this case to state that minor discrepancies should be discarded.
• Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127:* The Court cited this case to state that minor contradictions in the testimony of rustic witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case.
• State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247:* The Court cited this case to state that assessment of evidence cannot be made in a technical manner.
• Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188:* The Court relied on this case to state that non-recovery of the weapon is not fatal if there are direct reliable witnesses.
• Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2003) 5 SCC 291:* The Court used this case to state that the testimony of police personnel is to be treated similarly as the testimony of any other witness.
• Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381:* The Court cited this case to state that merely because witnesses turn hostile does not mean their evidence has to be thrown out entirely.
• Raja v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 10 SCC 506:* The Court used this case to state that the evidence of a hostile witness can be accepted to the extent found dependable.
• Mohd. Rojali Ali Vs. The State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567:* The Court used this case to clarify the difference between “interested” and “related” witnesses.
• Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of the trial court’s observations of the demeanor of witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Credibility of the Eye Witness: The court placed significant weight on the testimony of Lata Bai (PW-10), the mother of the deceased, finding her to be a credible and reliable witness despite minor inconsistencies and the delay in recording her statement. The court noted her emotional state while deposing, which indicated her truthfulness.
• Corroboration of Evidence: The court found that Lata Bai’s testimony was corroborated by the FIR filed by Santosh (PW-6), the medical evidence, and the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-15). Even though some witnesses turned hostile, the court used the admissible parts of their testimony.
• Lack of Proven Intent to Kill: While the court found that the appellants had caused the death of the deceased, it noted that the prosecution had not clearly established that the assault was premeditated with the intention to kill. The court emphasized that the motive for the crime was not clearly established.
• Nature of Injuries: The court observed that the injuries, though grievous, were described as skin deep, and the death was attributed to the cumulative effect of these injuries, not any particular fatal injury. The court also noted that the deceased survived for a couple of days after the assault.
• Benefit of Doubt: The court gave the appellants the benefit of doubt regarding the intention to commit murder, leading to the modification of the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the appellants did not intend to kill the deceased, but rather caused bodily injury that resulted in death. This interpretation was accepted by the Court, leading to the modification of the conviction. The Court rejected the argument that the appellants should be acquitted on the ground of parity with their father, as the evidence against them was found to be stronger.

The final decision was that the appellants were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court reasoned that while the appellants caused the death of Suraj, the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to commit murder. The court noted that the motive was unclear, the injuries were not immediately fatal, and the deceased survived for a couple of days. This led to the modification of the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“It is also noticeable that the circumstances under which the assault took place and the reason for causing the injuries by the appellants and the motive behind their assault has not come out clearly.”

“However, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had caused the death of the deceased fully knowing that the bodily injuries caused by the appellants were likely to cause death.”

“we are inclined to convert the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision to modify the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Supreme Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving murder and culpable homicide, particularly in cases where the intention to kill is not definitively proven. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering all circumstances and evidence to determine the appropriate charge and conviction. The Court’s approach ensures that while justice is served, the accused are not punished for a crime they did not intend to commit. The judgment also highlights the need for a balanced approach between the benefit of doubt and social defense.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Goverdhan & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) serves as a significant reminder of the nuances between murder and culpable homicide. The Court’s decision to modify the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC underscores the critical importance of establishing intent in murder cases. The Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, giving due consideration to the testimony of the eye witness, the medical evidence, and the circumstances of the incident. While the Court found the appellants guilty of causing the death of the deceased, the lack of proven intent to kill led to the modification of the conviction. This case reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaways:

• Intent is Crucial: For a conviction of murder under Section 302 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Culpable Homicide: If the intent to kill is not proven, but the accused caused death with the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death, the conviction may be modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
• Reliability of Witnesses: The testimony of a single eye witness can be relied upon if it is found to be credible and is corroborated by other evidence. Minor inconsistencies or delays in recording statements do not necessarily make the testimony unreliable.
• Parity in Acquittal: The principle of parity does not apply if the evidence against the accused is distinct and stronger than the evidence against another accused who was acquitted.
• Benefit of Doubt: The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment in this case has significant implications for the interpretation and application of Sections 302 and 304 of the IPC. It highlights the need for a careful and nuanced approach in criminal trials, ensuring that justice is served without compromising the principles of fairness and due process. The Supreme Court’s ruling provides a clear framework for future cases, emphasizing the importance of establishing intent, evaluating witness testimony, and applying the law with precision and fairness.