Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide in agricultural land dispute: Sita Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 October 2021

Citation: (Not provided in the document)

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi

When a fight breaks out suddenly, and someone dies, is it always murder? The Supreme Court of India recently examined a case where a death occurred during a violent clash over a land dispute. The court had to decide whether the accused were guilty of murder or a lesser offense of culpable homicide. This case highlights the importance of understanding the circumstances surrounding a death to determine the correct legal charge. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

On August 2, 1982, a violent incident occurred in an agricultural field in Rajasthan. Moti Ram reported that his mother and wife, along with his brother Phoolchand, were attacked by a group of individuals including Hanuman, Mangu, Surja, Sitaram, and others. The attackers were armed with sickles and cudgels. Phoolchand ran home to inform his father, Ghadsee Ram, and brother, Shyam Lal, who rushed to the scene. Ghadsee Ram sustained fatal injuries, while Shyam Lal was seriously injured with a sickle.

Initially, a case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 325, 324, 323, 149 read with 382 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). After Ghadsee Ram’s death, Section 302 of the IPC (murder) was added. The post-mortem report revealed that Ghadsee Ram had multiple external and internal injuries, including a fractured skull and brain laceration, caused by blunt objects. Other individuals, including Moti Ram’s wife and mother, also sustained injuries. Two of the accused also suffered injuries from sharp weapons.

The Investigating Officer acknowledged that there were two cross-versions of the incident, with the accused also filing a First Information Report (FIR) earlier in time regarding the same transaction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted eight male individuals, including Hanuman, Manguram, Surja Ram, Sitaram, Mangla Ram, Prahlad, Jagdish, and Ganesh, under Sections 147, 302/149, 325/149, and 323 of the IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charges. The convicted individuals appealed to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur. During the appeal, Hanuman, Mangoo Ram, Surja Ram, and Jagdish passed away, and proceedings against them were abated. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision on September 21, 2016.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, it was argued that appellants Mangla Ram, Prahlad, and Ganesh were juveniles at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court, referring to the ruling in Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489], which held that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, directed the Sessions Court in Sikar, Rajasthan, to investigate their ages. The Sessions Court confirmed that Prahlad and Ganesh were indeed juveniles at the time of the incident.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which defines “murder,” and its exceptions. Specifically, the court considered Exception 4 to Section 300, which states:

“Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

The court also considered Section 304 of the IPC, which deals with “culpable homicide not amounting to murder.” Section 304-II deals with cases of 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 grievous hurt.

Additionally, Section 149 of the IPC, which deals with “every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object,” was considered in relation to the liability of the accused persons.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were also relevant for determining the course of action for the accused who were found to be juveniles.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the incident occurred due to a sudden fight without premeditation, and therefore, the conviction should not be for murder. They contended that the injuries were inflicted in the heat of the moment during a sudden quarrel.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the accused were rightly convicted for murder based on the severity of the injuries and the nature of the assault. They argued that the accused had a common intention to cause harm, which led to the death of Ghadsee Ram.

The arguments of the appellants can be broken down into the following sub-submissions:

• The incident was a result of a sudden fight without any pre-planning.
• The injuries were inflicted during the heat of passion.
• The accused did not take undue advantage nor did they act in a cruel or unusual manner.
• The matter is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• The conviction should be modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The arguments of the respondent (State) can be broken down into the following sub-submissions:

• The accused had a common intention to cause harm.
• The severity of the injuries and the nature of the assault warrant a conviction for murder.
• The accused were rightly convicted for murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the incident would be covered by Exception fourthly to Section 300 of the IPC, thereby making the crime culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead of murder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court considered the authorities and came to the following conclusions:

The court held that the incident was a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without premeditation. The court noted that the injuries were caused by blunt objects, and there was no evidence of the accused taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, the court concluded that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

The court cited Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489] to address the issue of juvenility of some of the accused.

The court modified the conviction of the accused from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC. The court also held that the accused would be guilty under Section 304-II read with Section 149 of the IPC.

The Court observed:

“In the premises, in our considered view, the matter would be covered by Exception fourthly to Section 300 IPC and as such, the crime in question would not be “murder” but “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”.”

The Court further observed:

“In the totality of the circumstances, in our view, all the accused would be principally guilty of the offences under Section 304-II and Section 304-II read with Section 149 of the IPC.”

Regarding the sentence, the Court observed:

“In the fitness of things, the appropriate sentence for the principal offence under Section 304-II and 304-II read with 149 of the IPC ought to be six years of imprisonment.”

The court directed that the accused, Sita Ram and Mangla Ram, who had completed about six years of sentence, be released if their custody was not required in connection with any other offence. It also directed that Prahlad and Ganesh, who were found to be juveniles, be dealt with under Section 20 of the J.J. Act, 2000 and Section 25 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the conviction from murder to culpable homicide was influenced by several factors. The court emphasized that the incident was a result of a sudden fight, without premeditation, and occurred in the heat of passion. The absence of any evidence indicating that the accused had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner was also a significant factor. The court also took into account that the injuries were caused by blunt objects, which further supported the conclusion that the incident was not a planned attack.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, specifically the nature of the fight and the type of injuries inflicted. The court also applied the legal principles enshrined in Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

Key Takeaways

• When a death occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation, the offense may be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder.
• The presence of a sudden quarrel and the absence of undue advantage or cruel behavior by the accused are crucial factors in determining whether Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC applies.
• Claims of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even before the Supreme Court.
• Juvenile offenders must be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Acts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• Accused Sita Ram and Mangla Ram, who had completed about six years of sentence, be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence.
• Accused Prahlad and Ganesh, who were found to be juveniles, be dealt with in terms of Section 20 of the J.J. Act, 2000 and Section 25 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a death occurs in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, it constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as per Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. This judgment clarifies the application of this exception in cases involving sudden fights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sita Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan provides important clarity on the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights. By applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, the court ensured that the accused were not punished for murder when the circumstances indicated a lack of premeditation and malice. The judgment also reinforces the principle that claims of juvenility can be raised at any stage and that juvenile offenders are to be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Acts.