Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide in land dispute case: Pardeshiram vs. State of M.P. (2021) INSC 49 (09 February 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 09 February 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 49
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a sudden fight during a heated argument lead to a murder conviction, or should it be considered culpable homicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal altercation between family members over a land dispute. The court examined whether the accused acted in the heat of passion without premeditation, which would reduce the severity of the charge. This judgment clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning sudden fights and their consequences. The bench consisted of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on May 30, 2002, in Village Bhardao Para, Chhattisgarh. Pardeshiram, the appellant, was convicted for the murder of his uncle, Kartik Ram. The dispute arose from a disagreement over the construction of a wall on agricultural land. The deceased, Kartik Ram, had returned from his field after delivering fertilizer. When he was about to go for another round, the appellant confronted him regarding the wall. Though the dispute was initially pacified by Jagdish, the appellant later climbed onto Kartik Ram’s bullock cart and assaulted him with a spade. The appellant then hit the deceased with a stone on his head, resulting in his death. An FIR was lodged based on the statement of Arjun (PW-1), son of the deceased.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed the appeal against the conviction on August 4, 2010. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines murder. Exception 4 to this section 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 cruelly or unusually.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section prescribes the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section prescribes the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of this section deals with cases where the act is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the incident occurred during a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without any premeditation. The dispute was over the construction of a wall, and the appellant used a shovel, a common agricultural tool, followed by a stone picked up from the street.
• The appellant contended that the injuries were inflicted in the heat of passion, and the act should be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under the first part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the appellant’s actions constituted murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the appellant intentionally caused the death of the deceased.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the act committed by the appellant falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, thereby reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder and its exceptions.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

The Court held that the appellant’s actions fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court noted that the fight was sudden, without premeditation, and occurred in the heat of passion. The Court also observed that the appellant did not take undue advantage or act cruelly.

The Court stated, “The injuries were inflicted without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken advantage or acted cruelly or unusually.”

The Court also observed, “The accused and the deceased were from the same family. The cause of provocation was sudden, without premeditation.”

The Court further stated, “In this view of the matter, we find that the appellant is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the fight was sudden and without premeditation. The relationship between the accused and the deceased, who were family members, and the nature of the dispute, which was about a wall, were also significant factors. The Court emphasized that the appellant did not act cruelly or take undue advantage of the situation. The use of a common agricultural tool and a stone picked up from the street further supported the conclusion that the incident occurred in the heat of passion.

Key Takeaways

• A fight that occurs suddenly, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, may not constitute murder.
• The use of common tools or objects found at the scene of a sudden fight can indicate a lack of premeditation.
• The relationship between the parties and the nature of the dispute are important factors in determining the nature of the offense.
• If an offender does not take undue advantage or act cruelly during a sudden fight, the offense may be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, as he had already served more than 18 years of his jail sentence and was not wanted in any other case. The Court sentenced him to the sentence already undergone.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without undue advantage or cruelty, the offense is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the circumstances of a fight to determine the appropriate charge.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the appellant’s conviction 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 emphasized that the incident occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the appellant taking undue advantage or acting cruelly. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone and was ordered to be released forthwith.