Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Land Dispute Case

Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1034

Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a sudden fight during a heated argument reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal stabbing during a land dispute. The Court examined whether the act was a pre-planned murder or a result of sudden provocation. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Kolandaippam, who was fatally stabbed during a confrontation with the appellant, Mariappan, and two other individuals. The incident stemmed from a long-standing land dispute between the deceased and the accused. Prior to the fatal incident, there had been several altercations and threats between the parties, including a prior confrontation on the disputed land and another involving the deceased’s wife and the sister of the first accused.

On March 17, 2009, at approximately 6:00 PM, the deceased, along with P.Ws.2, 3, and 5, was confronted by the accused at Koil Kaadu Chithanattu Salai in Neringipettai Village. A heated argument ensued, during which Mariappan (accused no.1) and another accused stabbed Kolandaippam with soori-knives, while the third accused, armed with a spade handle, did not inflict any injuries but was present during the attack. The deceased’s daughter, P.W.1, witnessed the event. Kolandaippam was taken to the Government Hospital at Bhavani, where he was declared dead. A complaint was lodged at the Ammapettai Police Station, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavani, in S.C.No.177 of 2010, framed charges against the accused. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and accused no.3 was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court examined 14 witnesses and considered 18 documents and 9 material objects. While the Trial Court acquitted accused nos.2 and 3, it convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.

The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision on April 22, 2016, concluding that the appellant’s act fell under the third limb of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and did not qualify for any exceptions. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines murder, and its exceptions. The relevant part of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“300. 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is central to this case, 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.
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.”

The Court also discusses Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes the punishment for murder, and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the Trial Court should have considered the incident as falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, because the stabbing occurred suddenly during a verbal quarrel.
• The appellant contended that the act was not premeditated and happened in the heat of the moment.
• The appellant argued that the act should be considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent-State supported the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court.
• The respondent argued that the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the wound caused by the appellant was the reason for the death of the deceased.
• The respondent contended that the act of the appellant was a murder and should be punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the act of the accused is culpable homicide amounting to murder or not.
2. Whether the acts of the accused would come under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or would be an act of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. [(2012) 8 SCC 289]*: The Court relied on this case to understand the distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing that the classification depends on the facts of each case.
• Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217]*: The Court used this case to determine the conditions necessary to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which include a sudden fight, no premeditation, act done in the heat of passion, and no undue advantage or cruel manner.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to convert the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder was primarily influenced by the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Court emphasized that the stabbing occurred during a heated verbal argument, without any prior planning or premeditation. The previous enmity between the parties was deemed a contributory factor but not the sole reason for the attack. The court also noted that the appellant acted suddenly in the heat of passion. The court also took into account that the appellant had caused only one injury, whereas other accused had caused multiple injuries.

The court’s reasoning was based on the fact that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had caused only one injury whereas other accused had caused multiple injuries. The court concluded that the act fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and therefore, the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was not appropriate.

The Court noted, “In the present case, while looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be seen that the appellant had suddenly stabbed the deceased during a heated verbal argument with him and not during a pre -planned attack which was carried out with the sole intention of causing the death of the deceased.”

The court further stated, “The appellant had acted “suddenly”, in the heat of passion and without a pre -planned approach to kill the deceased.”

The Court also observed, “Hence, it can be safely concluded from the evidence led in the present case that the appellant’s overt act of killing the deceased happened during a fit of anger in the heat of a passionate verbal quarrel and would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.”

The court considered the prosecution story, the ocular testimony, and the fact that only the appellant was convicted, while the other two accused were acquitted, which further supported the conclusion that the act was not a pre-planned murder.

Key Takeaways

• A sudden fight during a heated verbal argument can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• For Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to apply, the act must be without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without undue advantage or cruel manner.
• The previous enmity between parties can be a contributory factor but is not sufficient to prove premeditation for murder.
• The court will consider the facts and circumstances of the case to determine the nature of the offence.

Directions

The Supreme Court converted the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, to be paid to the victim’s family.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a death occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without undue advantage or cruel manner, the act falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is not considered murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment reinforces the established legal position on the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, particularly in cases of sudden quarrels.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction of the appellant from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the act was a result of a sudden fight during a heated argument, without premeditation, and in the heat of passion, thus falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The sentence was reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000.