Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide in land dispute case: Manoj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 439
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can a sudden fight during a land dispute reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a fatal assault during a property dispute. The court examined whether the accused acted with the intention to kill or if the death resulted from a sudden quarrel without premeditation. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, with the majority opinion authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute between Jaram Singh (PW1) and others, who owned land mortgaged to Krishan Lal and Subhash Chand but possessed by Prem Dass (the deceased). The appellants, Manoj Kumar, Surinder Singh, and Rangeel Singh, were involved in a dispute over this land. Jaram Singh and Prem Dass had previously filed a civil suit to prevent the appellants from constructing on the disputed land.

On March 24, 2004, at around 8:30 PM, Jeewan (PW12), the complainant, found his father, Prem Dass, with Yashwant Singh (PW13) and Narso Ram (DW1) near Chhedu village. While returning, they encountered the appellants and their family near the disputed land. The appellants allegedly attacked Prem Dass. Manoj Kumar (A4) struck Prem Dass on the head with a spade, Surinder Kumar (A3) used a sickle, and others used sticks. During the attack, Rangeel Singh (A1) allegedly threatened to kill Prem Dass. Prem Dass was taken to a health center but died from his injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all the accused under Sections 302, 341, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), except for the charge under Section 506/149 of the IPC. The High Court acquitted Mohinder Singh (A2), Biaso Devi (A7), Rekha Devi (A5), and Veena Devi (A6), but upheld the conviction of Rangeel Singh (A1), Surinder Kumar (A3), and Manoj Kumar (A4). The High Court reasoned that the motive was the land dispute, the statement of DW-1 was not believable, and the blood group on the clothes of accused no. 1 matched the deceased.

Legal Framework

The key legal provision in this case is Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines murder. The court also considered Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which 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 taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The court also considered Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

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.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The prosecution’s case is based on a land dispute, and there is no proof of premeditation.
• The incident occurred near the disputed property, suggesting the deceased came to attack the appellants.
• The presence of simple injuries on the deceased does not support the intention to cause death, required for a murder conviction under Section 300 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The defense argued that the deceased abused the appellants, leading to a sudden fight, and therefore the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the High Court’s judgment and sought the dismissal of the appeals.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the accused are liable to be punished for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder or not?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

Authorities and their use:

• Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, (2004) 11 SCC 395:* The court used this case to explain the conditions for applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the absence of premeditation in a sudden fight.
• Camilo Vaz vs. State of Goa, (2000) 9 SCC 1:* The court used this case to clarify the two parts of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, distinguishing between acts done with the intention to cause death and acts done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death.
• Deo Nath Rai vs State of Bihar and Others etc, AIR 2017 SC 5428:* The court cited this case to support the view that a sudden fight without premeditation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide.
• Modi, A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology:* The court cited this book to emphasize that a slight head injury can cause cerebral hemorrhage in a person predisposed to it.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of premeditation, the sudden nature of the fight, and the nature of the injuries inflicted. The court noted that the fight arose from a verbal altercation, and the appellants did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. The medical evidence, particularly the absence of a skull fracture and the nature of the head injury, indicated that the appellants did not intend to cause death, but rather had the knowledge that their actions could cause death.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered that the death was not instantaneous and occurred due to a hemorrhage. The court observed, “When several persons of the accused group wielding weapons attacked the deceased, it is surprising to see only two injuries, that too, two simple injuries alone are inflicted; of course, one such simple injury turns out to be fatal sometime later.” The court also noted that “the force and gravity of assault indicates that the aforesaid assault was carried out with only sufficient knowledge of likely death of the deceased in a free fight situation.” The court further stated, “Had he got intention to commit the murder of the deceased by inflicting such injury, he might have used the weapon with sufficient force and in that case, definitely it would have caused a deep injury causing fracture of skull.”

The court concluded that the appellants were guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside, and the appellants were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, since they had already served more than 11.5 years, they were ordered to be released.

Key Takeaways

• A sudden fight without premeditation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The nature of injuries and the absence of intention to cause death are crucial in determining the appropriate charge.
• Verbal altercations that escalate into physical fights can be considered as sudden quarrels under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The court emphasized that for Exception 4 to apply, the offender must not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Directions

The appellants were directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a sudden fight without premeditation, where the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and did not have the intention to cause death, the charge of murder can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case reinforces the importance of considering the circumstances of a fight and the intention of the accused when determining criminal liability. There is no change in previous positions of law, but it reinforces the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of Manoj Kumar, Rangeel Singh, and Surinder Singh from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the fight was sudden, without premeditation, and the appellants did not intend to cause death. The appellants were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment but were released due to having served more than 11.5 years.