Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Lathi Attack Case: Badal Murmu vs. State of West Bengal (2014)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused, who assaulted the deceased with lathis, should be convicted for murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Badal Murmu and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal

Judgment Date: 5th February 2014

Date of the Judgment: 5th February 2014

Citation: (2014) INSC 75

Judges: (Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J., Madan B. Lokur, J.

Can a group of individuals be convicted of murder if they assault a person with lathis, resulting in death, but without a clear intention to kill? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Badal Murmu and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal. The court examined the circumstances of a fatal lathi attack, ultimately reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment highlights the importance of establishing intent in cases of group violence. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising of Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Madan B. Lokur. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident in the Santhal community of Mobarakpur village. In March 1989, Jhore Soren, the deceased, killed a hen belonging to Bhagbat, one of the appellants. This act led to a community meeting where Jhore Soren was penalized to give one hen and two handies of country liquor to Bhagbat. On April 14, 1989, Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka were discussing the incident when Bhagbat overheard and expressed his displeasure. Following a protest by PW-7 Kanka, Bhagbat, Ragai, and Sambhu assaulted him causing bleeding injuries. The next morning, Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka were called to Saheb Hasda’s courtyard under the pretext of a meeting. There, they were tied to a bamboo pole and a Kul tree, respectively, and assaulted with lathis by the appellants. PW-7 Kanka managed to escape, but Jhore Soren was beaten to death. The wives of Jhore Soren, who had followed him, were also assaulted by other women present. PW-1 Nilmoni, the first wife of Jhore Soren, reported the incident at Memari Police Station, leading to the investigation and subsequent charges against the appellants.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan, convicted all eleven appellants under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Jhore Soren, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
  This section deals with rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
  This section defines the punishment for murder.

• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
  This section deals with the concept of common object in an unlawful assembly, making each member liable for the offense committed in furtherance of that object.

• Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, specifically when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or grievous injury.

These provisions are part of the Indian Penal Code, which is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law in India.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants should be acquitted.
• Even if found guilty, the appellants should be convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, as there was no intention to kill the deceased.
• The appellants used lathis, not lethal weapons, and the injuries were not on vital parts of the body, indicating no intention to kill.
• The appellants are poor tribals who have been in jail for a long time, and their sentence should be reduced to the period already served.
• Relied on Kirti Mahto & Ors. v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp. (2) SCC 569] to argue that the use of lathis and the nature of injuries indicate an absence of intent to kill.
• Relied on Molu & Ors. v. State of Haryana [AIR 1976 SC 2499] to argue that superficial injuries suggest a lack of intention to cause death.

State’s Arguments:

• The ocular evidence establishes the prosecution’s case.
• Even if the common object was to inflict injuries, the appellants, as members of an unlawful assembly, knew that murder was likely to be committed, making them guilty of murder.
• The appellants persistently assaulted Jhore Soren, causing grievous injuries that resulted in his death, demonstrating an intention to commit murder.
• Relied on Munivel v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2006) 9 SCC 394] and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648] to support the argument that members of an unlawful assembly are responsible for the actions of the group.
• Relied on Kashmiri Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1997 SC 393] to argue that the persistent assault and grievous injuries indicate an intention to commit murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the appellants were guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II 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 authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kirti Mahto & Ors. v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp. (2) SCC 569]*: The Court accepted the argument that the use of lathis and the nature of injuries indicated an absence of intent to kill.
• Molu & Ors. v. State of Haryana [AIR 1976 SC 2499]*: The Court accepted the argument that superficial injuries suggest a lack of intention to cause death.
• Munivel v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2006) 9 SCC 394]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts of this case did not indicate that the appellants shared a common object to commit murder.
• Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts of this case did not indicate that the appellants shared a common object to commit murder.
• Kashmiri Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1997 SC 393]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts of this case did not indicate an intention to commit murder.
• Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1992 SC 755]*: The Court followed this case to support its reasoning that when no specific role is assigned to each accused and the injuries are not specifically linked to any individual, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is not sustainable.
• Sarman & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 356]*: The Court followed this case to support its reasoning that when the injuries are inflicted with lathis and are not on vital parts, the intention to kill may not be inferred, and the conviction may be altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several key factors. The court noted that the incident stemmed from a trivial matter—the theft of a hen—and that the appellants, belonging to a tribal community, reacted out of anger rather than a premeditated plan to kill. The use of lathis, instead of the readily available sharp weapons, further suggested a lack of intent to cause death. The absence of specific roles assigned to each appellant in causing the fatal injuries and the lack of clarity on which injury was fatal also played a crucial role in the court’s decision. The socio-economic background of the appellants and the fact that they had already spent a significant time in jail were also considered by the court.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the appellants intended to cause grievous hurt, which could lead to death. However, the court rejected this interpretation, stating that the facts and circumstances of the case did not indicate a clear intention to cause death. The court emphasized that the appellants did not use the readily available sharp weapons and that the injuries were not specifically targeted at vital parts of the body. The court also took into account the socio-economic background of the appellants and the trivial nature of the incident that led to the assault. The court concluded that the appellants were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not guilty of murder. The Court reasoned that the appellants did not share a common intention to kill Jhore Soren. The use of lathis instead of sharp weapons indicated a lack of intent to cause death. The court also noted that no specific role was ascribed to any of the appellants in causing the fatal injuries, and the doctor could not identify the specific fatal injury. The court, therefore, found that the appellants were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The appellants did not share a common intention to kill the deceased.
• The use of lathis indicated a lack of intent to cause death.
• No specific role was ascribed to any of the appellants in causing the fatal injuries.
• The doctor could not identify the specific fatal injury.
• The incident stemmed from a trivial matter.
• The appellants belonged to a tribal community and reacted out of anger.

“It appears to us that what started as an exercise to teach a lesson to deceased-Jhore Soren by beating him with lathis, took an ugly turn. In a frenzy lathi blows were dealt with force.”

“In the peculiar facts of this case, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the appellants shared common object to murder the deceased and in prosecution of that common object they caused his death.”

“Though, there can be no justification for the appellants’ actions, their anger and reaction to the theft of hen must be viewed against the background of their economic and social status.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was composed of two judges, and both agreed on the final decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder highlights the importance of establishing intent in cases of group violence. It underscores that not every act of violence leading to death constitutes murder. The judgment emphasizes that the common object of an unlawful assembly must be to commit the specific offence for which the accused are charged. The court also took into consideration the socio-economic background of the appellants and the trivial nature of the incident, which influenced the decision to reduce the sentence. This judgment has implications for future cases involving group violence and will likely be cited in cases where the intention to kill is not clearly established.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles in this case. The court applied existing principles of criminal law, particularly those related to common intention, culpable homicide, and unlawful assembly. The court’s analysis focused on the facts of the case and the application of established legal principles to those facts.

Key Takeaways

• In cases of group violence, the prosecution must prove that the accused shared a common intention to commit the specific crime, such as murder.
• The use of non-lethal weapons, like lathis, and the absence of injuries on vital parts of the body can indicate a lack of intent to kill.
• When no specific role is assigned to each accused in causing the fatal injuries, it is difficult to convict all members of an unlawful assembly for murder.
• The socio-economic background and the trivial nature of the incident can be considered when determining the appropriate sentence.
• The court may reduce the sentence to the period already served if the accused has been in jail for a considerable time and the facts of the case warrant such a reduction.

This judgment may influence future cases involving group violence and will likely be cited in cases where the intention to kill is not clearly established. It reinforces the principle that the common object of an unlawful assembly must be to commit the specific offence for which the accused are charged.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released forthwith unless they are required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of group violence, where the intention to kill is not clearly established, and the injuries are inflicted with non-lethal weapons, the conviction can be reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment reinforces the principle that the common object of an unlawful assembly must be to commit the specific offence for which the accused are charged. This judgment also reiterated the position of law laid down in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1992 SC 755] and Sarman & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 356]

Conclusion

In Badal Murmu and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court reduced the appellants’ conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court found that the appellants did not share a common intention to kill the deceased and that the use of lathis indicated a lack of intent to cause death. The court also considered the socio-economic background of the appellants and the trivial nature of the incident. This judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing intent in cases of group violence and highlights that not every act of violence resulting in death constitutes murder.