Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Gangabishan Case (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 27 July 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

When does an assault causing death constitute murder, and when does it become culpable homicide not amounting to murder? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case where a man died from a gunshot wound inflicted during a violent altercation. The court examined whether the accused intended to cause death or merely inflict bodily harm that resulted in death. This judgment clarifies the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, focusing on the intent behind the act and the nature of the injury inflicted.

Case Background

On the day of the incident, Dinesh (PW-1) and his brother Rajesh (the deceased) were in their field when a group of individuals, including Gangabishan @ Vishnu (Accused No. 1), arrived armed with lathis, swords, and a 12-bore gun. Accused No. 1 shot Rajesh in the left thigh, causing him to fall. Dinesh tried to get help, and eventually, Rajesh was taken to a hospital, where he was declared dead. The incident stemmed from a prior dispute about the accused persons’ cattle grazing in the field of PW-1 and causing damage to the crops.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all the accused under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. Accused No. 1 was additionally convicted under Section 30 of the Arms Act. On appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside the convictions of Accused Nos. 2 to 9. However, the High Court convicted Accused No. 1 under Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 302 and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is divided into two parts: Part I and Part II. Part I 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.”

The key distinction between murder (Section 302 of the IPC) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 of the IPC) lies in the intention and knowledge of the accused. Murder requires the intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, whereas culpable homicide not amounting to murder involves the intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death but without the specific intention to cause death.

Arguments

The appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh) argued that the High Court failed to appreciate that the respondents, armed with weapons, had come to the spot with premeditation and the common intention to assault and kill the complainant and his brother. They contended that the High Court should not have set aside the conviction of Accused Nos. 2 to 9 and should have upheld the conviction of Accused No. 1 under Section 302 of the IPC.

The respondents (Accused) argued that the High Court’s judgment was correct and should be upheld.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

✓ Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 9 under Sections 302/149 and 325/149 of the IPC.

✓ Whether the High Court was correct in convicting accused No. 1 under Section 304 Part I of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.

✓ Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

The Court observed that the medical evidence indicated that the deceased suffered only one gunshot injury on his left thigh. The Court noted that if the intention of Accused No. 1 was to commit murder, the injury would have been inflicted on a more vital part of the body. The Court held that the act of Accused No. 1 was to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, thus making him liable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the medical evidence and the location of the injury. The court emphasized that the location of the gunshot wound on the back of the thigh suggested that the intention of the accused was not to cause death, but to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause death. This distinction was crucial in determining whether the offense fell under Section 302 (murder) or Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court stated, “In view of the medical evidence, it would be easy to infer that if accused No.1 was having intention to commit murder of the deceased and used fire arm for that purpose, the injury could have been caused on upper limb, above waist of the deceased but the part chosen for causing injury was the back portion of left thigh.”

The Court further observed, “Thus, though the accused No.1 was not having intention to commit murder of the deceased but the act was to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause death.”

The Court concluded, “Therefore, the High Court found that he would be responsible for commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• The location of the injury is a crucial factor in determining the intention of the accused in cases of homicide.
• A general statement of assault without specific attribution to each accused is not sufficient for conviction.
• Medical evidence must corroborate the statements of witnesses in cases of assault.
• The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder lies in the intention and knowledge of the accused.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the intention behind causing an injury is crucial in determining whether the act constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the location of the injury (back of the thigh) indicated a lack of intent to cause death, thus making it culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case reinforces the importance of medical evidence and specific attribution of acts in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to convict Accused No. 1 under Section 304 Part I of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and acquitting Accused Nos. 2 to 9. The judgment highlights the importance of medical evidence in determining the nature of the offense and the intention of the accused.