LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the act of shooting during a sudden quarrel amounts to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Yogesh @ Sonu Tharu vs. The State

Judgment Date: April 4, 2024

Date of the Judgment: April 4, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 305
Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J. and S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Can a sudden fight at a birthday party lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court recently examined this question, focusing on whether a shooting during a drunken brawl constitutes murder or culpable homicide. This case involves two individuals convicted for murder after a fatal shooting at a birthday celebration. The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of one accused and reduced the sentence of the other.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident at a birthday party where the deceased was fatally shot. The prosecution’s case was that the two accused, along with the deceased, were at a party celebrating the birthday of PW-24. An altercation occurred between A2 (Accused No. 2) and the deceased. Following this, A1 (Accused No. 1) took a gun and initially missed a shot aimed at the deceased. PW-19, a relative of the deceased, witnessed A1 handing the gun to A2, asking him to shoot the deceased. A2 did not shoot. A1 then took the gun back and shot the deceased, resulting in his death. The postmortem report indicated that the deceased was intoxicated, aligning with the testimony of PW-19, who stated that all parties consumed alcohol at the party.

Timeline:

Date Event
Undisclosed Birthday party hosted for PW-24.
Undisclosed Altercation occurs between A2 and the deceased.
Undisclosed A1 initially misses a shot at the deceased.
Undisclosed A1 hands the gun to A2, who does not shoot.
Undisclosed A1 takes the gun back and shoots the deceased, resulting in his death.
Undisclosed PW-31 informs PW-20, who then informs the police.
Undisclosed Police arrive, secure the body, and send it for postmortem.
Undisclosed Statement recorded from PW-19, forming the basis of the FIR.
April 4, 2024 Supreme Court delivers judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted both A1 and A2 based on the evidence of PW-19, despite most other eyewitnesses turning hostile. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging their conviction and sentence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 304 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Section 34 of the IPC which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention is also considered.

Section 302, Indian Penal Code: This section prescribes 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: This section defines the punishment for 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; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if 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.”

See also  Supreme Court clarifies scope of Section 197 CrPC for public servants in forgery case: Indra Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (23 July 2021)

Section 34, Indian Penal Code: This section defines the concept 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.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (A1 and A2):

  • The presence of PW-19 at the scene was doubtful, and his conduct was unnatural. He did not attempt to interfere with the fight, nor did he immediately inform anyone about the incident.

  • The incident occurred at the spur of the moment, without premeditation, and should be considered under Section 304 Part I of the IPC rather than Section 302 of the IPC as all parties were under the influence of alcohol.

  • There was no evidence to implicate A2 under Section 34 of the IPC. A2 did not shoot the deceased nor prompt A1 to do so. Mere presence cannot attribute the alleged offence to A2.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

  • The CDR (Call Detail Record) record and the evidence of PW-32 and PW-33 corroborate the presence of PW-19 at the scene.

  • Both the Trial Court and the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence of PW-19 and the recovery made, and there is no perversity in their judgments.

  • The use of a gun and the accused running away from the scene justify the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Main Submission Sub-Submissions Party
Presence of PW-19 PW-19’s presence is doubtful due to unnatural conduct and delay in reporting. Appellants
Presence of PW-19 CDR records and evidence of PW-32 and PW-33 corroborate PW-19’s presence. Respondent
Nature of Offence The incident was not premeditated and occurred at the spur of the moment. Appellants
Nature of Offence The use of a gun and the accused fleeing from the scene justify conviction under Section 302 IPC. Respondent
Liability of A2 A2 did not shoot the deceased nor prompt A1 to do so, hence Section 34 IPC does not apply. Appellants
Liability of A2 Both the Trial Court and the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and there is no perversity in their judgments. Respondent

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issues addressed were:

  1. Whether the conviction of A2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was justified.
  2. Whether the act of A1 constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Reasoning
Conviction of A2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC Set Aside A2 did not shoot the deceased, nor did he instigate A1 to do so. The principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the IPC was incorrectly applied.
Conviction of A1 under Section 302 of the IPC Modified to Section 304 Part I of the IPC The incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel, and the weapon was not brought with the intention to commit an offense. It was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
See also  Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Brutal Murder Case: Jayaben vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr. (2022)

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly mention any authorities in the judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the facts of the case and the interpretation of Sections 302, 304, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Authority How it was used
Section 302, Indian Penal Code The Court discussed the definition of murder under this section and determined that the facts of the case did not qualify as murder.
Section 304, Indian Penal Code The Court found that the act of A1 was culpable homicide not amounting to murder and modified the conviction to this section.
Section 34, Indian Penal Code The Court held that the principle of common intention under this section was not applicable to A2 as he did not participate in the act.

Judgment

Submission by Parties Treatment by the Court
The presence of PW-19 is doubtful. The Court did not explicitly reject or accept this submission, but focused on the evidence of PW-19, which was taken into consideration by the Trial Court and High Court.
The incident was not premeditated and occurred at the spur of the moment. The Court accepted this submission and modified the conviction of A1 from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
A2 did not shoot the deceased nor prompt A1 to do so, hence Section 34 IPC does not apply. The Court accepted this submission and set aside the conviction of A2.
The CDR record and evidence of PW-32 and PW-33 corroborate PW-19’s presence. The Court did not explicitly comment on this submission but did not find it sufficient to uphold the conviction of A2.
The use of a gun and the accused fleeing from the scene justify conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Court rejected this submission and held that the act was not premeditated and did not amount to murder.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code: The Court determined that the act of A1 did not meet the criteria for murder under this section, as the shooting was not premeditated and occurred during a sudden quarrel.
  • Section 304, Indian Penal Code: The Court found that A1’s actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under this section, as the act was committed without the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code: The Court held that this section was not applicable to A2, as there was no evidence to suggest that A2 shared a common intention with A1 to commit the crime.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of premeditation and the sudden nature of the quarrel that led to the shooting. The court emphasized that the weapon was not brought with the intention of committing an offense. The court also noted that the incident occurred while all parties were under the influence of alcohol. The court also found that the principle of vicarious liability could not be applied to A2 as he did not participate in the act.

See also  Supreme Court Upholds Vicarious Liability in Murder Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Killu @ Kailash & Ors. (2019)
Reason Sentiment Analysis
Lack of premeditation in the act. High
Sudden nature of the quarrel. High
Weapon was not brought with the intention to commit an offense. Medium
All parties were under the influence of alcohol. Medium
Principle of vicarious liability could not be applied to A2. High
Ratio Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

Logical Reasoning:

Quarrel between A2 and Deceased
↓
A1 takes gun and shoots
↓
Was the act premeditated?
↓
No, it was a sudden quarrel
↓
Is A2 liable under Section 34 IPC?
↓
No, A2 did not participate in the act
↓
A1’s conviction reduced to Culpable Homicide, A2 acquitted

The Court considered the fact that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel, and the weapon was not brought with the intention of committing an offense. The court stated, “To put it differently, but for the quarrel between A2 and the deceased the occurrence would not have happened.” The court also noted, “The weapon was not brought for the purpose of committing an offence. A1 was carrying the weapon without any intention or objective to commit an offence.” The court further clarified, “In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to apply the principle of vicarious liability by bringing in the rigour of Section 34 as against A2.”

Key Takeaways

  • In cases of sudden altercations leading to death, the courts may consider the act as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder.

  • The principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the IPC requires a common intention to commit the crime, and mere presence at the scene is not sufficient to establish liability.

  • The intention behind carrying a weapon is crucial in determining the nature of the offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that A1 be released immediately as he had already undergone the modified sentence. A2 was also ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where a death occurs due to a sudden quarrel and without premeditation, the offense is more appropriately categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 of the IPC. Additionally, the judgment clarifies that for Section 34 of the IPC to apply, there must be a common intention to commit the crime, and mere presence is not sufficient. This modifies the previous position where both the Trial Court and the High Court had convicted both the accused for murder.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of A1 from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing his sentence to the period already served. The conviction of A2 was overturned as there was no evidence to show he had a common intention to commit the crime. This case highlights the importance of differentiating between murder and culpable homicide and the application of vicarious liability in criminal cases.

Source: Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Birthday Party Shooting Case