Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Drunken Brawl Case: Atul Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: January 19, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 37
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Can a drunken brawl lead to a murder conviction, or should it be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man was convicted of murder for fatally stabbing his friend during a late-night drinking party. The court examined whether the act was a premeditated murder or a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, with the opinion authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on the night of July 27-28, 2011, when a group of friends, including the appellant, Atul Thakur, and the deceased, Hitesh Thakur, gathered for a drinking party at the residence of Mukesh Thakur. During the party, a sudden altercation arose between Atul and Hitesh. In the heat of the moment, Atul stabbed Hitesh multiple times with a knife, resulting in Hitesh’s death. The prosecution’s case was initiated based on a telephonic message received at the police station about a quarrel near Tunnel 103, where Hitesh was found seriously injured. Hitesh was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The father of the deceased, Rajinder Singh, filed a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to the investigation and subsequent trial of Atul Thakur and three others.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, initially convicted Atul Thakur under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment. Both Atul Thakur and the complainant appealed this decision to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Atul Thakur contested his conviction, while the complainant sought a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) and an enhanced sentence for Atul, along with the conviction of the other three accused. The High Court upheld the finding of Atul’s involvement but modified the conviction to Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court also affirmed the acquittal of the other three accused. Atul Thakur then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines murder and culpable homicide. It states, “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.”
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC: This exception states that 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. It states, “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.”
• Section 302 of the IPC: 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 of the IPC: Prescribes the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part II of this section 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, 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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s (Atul Thakur) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there were contradictions in the eye-witness testimonies, which should benefit him. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The appellant submitted that the incident was a result of a sudden fight and, at best, it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• The appellant argued that the Trial Court had rightly invoked Section 304 Part II of the IPC and that the High Court erred in convicting him under Section 302 of the IPC.
• He highlighted that he had already served a significant portion of his sentence.

Respondents’ (State of Himachal Pradesh) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the findings of guilt by the Trial Court and the High Court were supported by the evidence on record.
• They contended that the High Court was correct in concluding that the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the IPC due to the repeated knife blows inflicted on the deceased.
• The respondents maintained that the appellant should serve a life sentence.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument focused on the lack of premeditation and the sudden nature of the fight, effectively using Exception 4 to Section 300 to argue for a lesser charge. This was a key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in modifying the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 Part II to Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Whether the incident was a case of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
3. Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
4. What should be the appropriate sentence for the appellant in the given circumstances.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 5 SCC 796] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to restate the settled legal position about the purport of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. In this case, the accused had repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a Kirpan, causing injuries resulting in death. The Court converted the offence to one under Section 304 Part-II instead of Section 302 IPC.

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): To understand the definition of murder and culpable homicide.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC: To determine if the act fell under the exception for sudden fights.
• Section 302 of the IPC: To understand the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 of the IPC: To understand the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the appellant was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The Court restored the Trial Court’s finding regarding the nature of the offence, but increased the sentence.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 5 SCC 796]*: The Court followed this precedent to reiterate that in cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the offence should be considered under Section 304 Part II of the IPC rather than Section 302.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Sudden Fight: The incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel without any pre-planning or premeditation.
• Heat of Passion: The appellant acted in the heat of passion during a sudden fight.
• No Undue Advantage: The appellant did not take any undue advantage of the situation.
• No Cruel Manner: The appellant did not act in a cruel or unusual manner.
• Lack of Intention to Murder: There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased.
• Post-Incident Conduct: The appellant’s actions after the incident, such as offering water to the deceased and taking him to the hospital, indicated a lack of intent to murder.

Fact:Law Ratio: The court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects (40%). The application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC was a key legal consideration, while the factual aspects mainly established the sudden nature of the fight and the absence of premeditation.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the High Court’s view that repeated knife blows indicated an intention to murder, but rejected it. The Supreme Court emphasized that the number of injuries alone cannot be a decisive factor. The Court noted that the incident was a sudden fight and that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of Hitesh Thakur. The Court also highlighted that the appellant offered water to Hitesh Thakur and took him to the hospital, further indicating a lack of intent to murder.

The Court quoted the Trial Court’s observation: “There is no doubt that Hitesh met a homicidal death on the night intervening 27/28.07/2011 at IGMC, Shimla consequent to stab injury inflicted by accused Atul Thakur.” However, the court also noted that, “the prosecution could not prove any motive for killing the deceased by the accused.” Furthermore, the court observed that, “it cannot be altogether ruled out that the stab injuries inflicted were not with an intention of taking undue advantage by the accused Atul.”

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the repeated blows with a knife indicated an intent to murder, but rejected it, stating that the number of wounds alone cannot be a decisive factor. The court emphasized that the occurrence was sudden and not premeditated, and the offender acted in the heat of passion. The court also considered the fact that the appellant used a knife, but clarified that this fact alone does not attract Section 302 of IPC.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, with the concurrence of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• In cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the offense may be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II of IPC) rather than murder (Section 302 of IPC).
• The number of injuries alone is not a decisive factor in determining the nature of the offense.
• The court must consider the overall circumstances, including the suddenness of the fight, the lack of premeditation, and the offender’s conduct after the incident.
• The use of a weapon like a knife does not automatically lead to a murder conviction if the other conditions of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC are met.
• Even if a person uses a weapon like a knife, if the act is done in a sudden fight without premeditation and in the heat of passion, then it may not be considered murder.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The appellant was also entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the offense should be considered under Section 304 Part II of the IPC rather than Section 302. This judgment reinforces the legal position that the number of injuries alone is not a decisive factor in determining the nature of the offense and that the court must consider the overall circumstances, including the suddenness of the fight, the lack of premeditation, and the offender’s conduct after the incident. This is consistent with the previous position of law as established in Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 5 SCC 796].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Atul Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh provides clarity on the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The court emphasized that in cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the offense may be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder. The court’s decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the facts, evidence, and legal principles, ensuring a just outcome in a complex case.