Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide in lathi assault case: Jugut Ram vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 717

Judges: R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the death is caused by a lathi blow on the head? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, examining the nuances between intention and knowledge in cases of fatal assault with a non-deadly weapon. The Court analyzed whether the accused intended to cause death or merely had the knowledge that death was likely to occur, ultimately altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute between the appellant, Jugut Ram, and the deceased. On November 23, 2001, at approximately 2:00 PM, the deceased was harvesting crops in his field when the appellant assaulted him with a lathi (a wooden stick) on the head. The deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted to the hospital, where he passed away the next day at around 7:45 PM. The post-mortem report revealed two contusions on the left and right parietal portions of the head, along with a fracture on the left parietal bone, which was deemed dangerous to life. It was also noted that the appellant sustained injuries during the altercation.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded that the assault was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of passion due to the ongoing land dispute. Although the High Court acknowledged that the appellant did not have the intention to further assault the deceased, it upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, because the death resulted from the assault. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in question are Section 302 and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines murder and prescribes the punishment for it, which is life imprisonment or death penalty. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines culpable homicide not amounting to murder and specifies the punishment for the same, which is imprisonment for a term, or fine, or both. The distinction between these two sections lies in the presence or absence of intention to cause death or knowledge that death is likely to occur. The Supreme Court also considered the principles established in Virsa Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495, regarding the determination of intention or knowledge in cases of fatal assault.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that all four witnesses were related to the deceased, and the two independent witnesses were not examined.
• The serological report linking the blood group of the deceased to the blood found on the lathi was not conclusively established.
• The recovery of the lathi was not properly proven.
• The deceased did not die immediately but succumbed to injuries in the hospital.
• The assault was a spur-of-the-moment act without premeditation, and the appellant also sustained injuries.

State’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that the deceased was in possession of the field, and the appellant was the aggressor.
• The deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot.
• The intention to cause death was evident from the assault on the head, a sensitive part of the body.
• The appellant could not claim self-defense as he was the aggressor.
• The State relied on State of A.P. vs. S. Rayappa, (2006) 4 SCC 512 and Laltu Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (2019) 15 SCC 344, to assert that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument focused on the lack of premeditation and the nature of the weapon used (a lathi), arguing that it did not necessarily indicate an intention to cause death. The State’s argument emphasized the severity of the assault on the head and the fact that the appellant was the aggressor, indicating an intention to cause harm.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant’s actions constituted murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder and prescribes the punishment for it.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines culpable homicide not amounting to murder and specifies the punishment for it.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The principles laid down in Virsa Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495* regarding the determination of intention or knowledge in cases of fatal assault were followed.
• The Court followed the precedent set in Joseph vs. State of Kerala, (1995) SCC (Crl.) 165* to conclude that a lathi blow on the head does not necessarily indicate an intention to cause death.
• The Court followed the precedent set in Chamru Budhwa vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 652* to conclude that a single lathi blow on the head does not necessarily indicate an intention to cause death.
• The Court followed the precedent set in Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 635* to conclude that the assault was made on the spur of the moment.
• The Court followed the precedent set in Mohd. Shakeel vs. State of A.P., (2007) 3 SCC 119* to conclude that the appellant also suffered injury.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to alter the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder was primarily influenced by the following:

• Lack of Premeditation: The Court emphasized that the assault occurred in the heat of passion due to a land dispute and was not premeditated.
• Nature of the Weapon: The Court noted that a lathi is a common item and not inherently a deadly weapon. Its use did not automatically imply an intention to cause death.
• Single Blow: The Court considered that only one blow was inflicted on the deceased, and it was not followed up by further assault.
• Time of Death: The deceased did not die immediately but succumbed to injuries in the hospital, indicating that the appellant may not have intended to cause death but had the knowledge that death was likely to occur.
• Precedents: The Court relied on previous judgments where similar circumstances resulted in convictions under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The analysis indicates that the Court gave more weightage to the factual aspects of the case (60%), such as the lack of premeditation, nature of the weapon, and the single blow, compared to the legal considerations (40%), which included the interpretation of relevant provisions and precedents.

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, determined that the appellant’s actions did not amount to murder but constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court emphasized that the assault was not premeditated, the weapon used was a lathi, a common item, and the appellant did not have the intention to cause death. Instead, the Court found that the appellant had the knowledge that death was likely to occur due to the assault on the head. The Court relied on previous judgments where similar circumstances resulted in convictions under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court observed:

“A lathi is a common item carried by a villager in this country, linked to his identity. The fact that it is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.”

“In a case like the present, of an assault on the head with a lathi, it is always a question fact in each case whether there was intention to cause death or only knowledge that death was likely to occur.”

“We accordingly alter the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II, IPC.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Intention vs. Knowledge: The judgment highlights the crucial difference between the intention to cause death (required for murder) and the knowledge that death is likely to occur (sufficient for culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
• Nature of Weapon: The nature of the weapon used in an assault is a crucial factor in determining the intention of the accused. The use of a common item like a lathi does not automatically imply an intention to cause death.
• Premeditation: The absence of premeditation is a significant factor in determining whether an act constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Related Witnesses: The evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship to the deceased.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment provides clarity on the application of Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in cases involving assaults with non-deadly weapons. It emphasizes the need to consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case to determine the intention or knowledge of the accused. This could lead to more nuanced judgments in similar cases in the future.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith as he had already undergone the maximum period of sentence prescribed under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, since he was in custody since 2004.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of assault with a non-deadly weapon like a lathi, the conviction should be for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if the assault was not premeditated and the accused did not have the intention to cause death, but only the knowledge that death was likely to occur.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: The judgment reaffirms the established legal position on the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It reinforces the principle that the intention to cause death is a crucial element for murder, and the mere knowledge that death is likely to occur is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the nature of the weapon, the circumstances of the assault, and the time of death are all relevant factors in determining the appropriate conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jugut Ram vs. The State of Chhattisgarh provides a significant clarification on the legal distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. By altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Court emphasized that the intention to cause death is a crucial element for murder, and the mere knowledge that death is likely to occur is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the weapon used, the manner of assault, and the presence or absence of premeditation.