Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Family Dispute Case (14 August 2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in cases of sudden fight without premeditation. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Udiya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Judgment Date: 14 August 2019

Date of the Judgment: 14 August 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Indu Malhotra, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a sudden fight between family members, resulting in death, be considered murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Udiya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The court examined whether the accused, who killed his brother in a sudden fight, should be convicted for murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The bench comprised Justices Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on July 10, 1999, at approximately 10:00 PM. The appellant, Udiya, was accused of causing the death of his brother, Nakuda. The incident took place when Nakuda was returning home from work. According to the testimony of Jeevni (PW-1), Nakuda’s wife and Udiya’s sister-in-law, she witnessed Udiya assaulting Nakuda with a stone. Nakuda also told her that Udiya had assaulted him with a stone. Following the incident, Jeevni sought help from a neighbor, Laxman, and they gathered other villagers at the scene. Jeevni then filed a police report.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Udiya under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirmed this conviction. The Supreme Court, while issuing notice in the appeal, confined its consideration to the nature of the offense and the quantum of punishment.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines murder. Exception 4 to this section 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of this section applies when the act is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the case fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, contending that the death resulted from a sudden fight without premeditation. The appellant emphasized the absence of any prior enmity or motive, and that he did not come armed to the spot. The appellant contended that the injuries caused were not intended to cause death.

The State argued that the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was correct, based on the nature of the injuries and the fact that the appellant used a stone to assault the deceased.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder is justified.
2. Whether the case falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. What should be the appropriate sentence if the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not justified?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in its judgment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the circumstances surrounding the incident. The absence of premeditation, the sudden nature of the fight, and the lack of evidence of prior enmity between the brothers weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to reduce the conviction. The Court also noted that the appellant did not come armed to the spot, and there was no clear intention to cause death. The testimony of Jeevni (PW-1) and other witnesses indicated a sudden quarrel, leading the Court to conclude that the case fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court stated, “It was a case of sudden fight in which the two brothers got involved and in the grapple the appellant had picked up a stone and had hit the deceased Nakuda.” The Court also observed, “Appellant had not come armed to the spot with a weapon of offence. No witness has testified as to any past enmity and acrimony between the two brothers.” Furthermore, the Court noted, “Even otherwise, there is hardly any evidence to suggest and show that the injuries caused were intended, so as to indicate intention of causing bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”

The Court concluded that the case did not qualify as murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but rather as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ In cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ The absence of prior enmity and the lack of intention to cause death are crucial factors in determining whether a case falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ The court will consider the circumstances of the incident, including whether the accused came armed or if there was any planning involved.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, which included one month of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a sudden fight, without premeditation or prior enmity, where the accused did not come armed, a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case reinforces the importance of considering the specific circumstances of a case when determining the appropriate charge and sentence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, converting the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone, recognizing the lack of premeditation and the sudden nature of the fight.