Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide in political clash case: Mani vs. State of Kerala (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 1, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 310

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is justified when a death occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation. This case arose from a political clash where one person was killed. The court examined the circumstances of the fight to determine if the act constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J., with the opinion authored by Hemant Gupta, J.

Case Background

On September 28, 2005, at approximately 8:10 PM, a violent incident occurred near Rosy School in Chozhiyamkod. Vishwanathan (PW2), son of Kunchu, reported that he and his friends, all sympathizers of the CPM party, were attacked by Mani (Accused 1) and three others (Accused 2-4), who were identified as BJP sympathizers. The attack was allegedly motivated by political enmity and involved weapons such as knives, a Vadival sword, and an iron rod. According to the First Information Report (FIR), Mani stabbed Soman, while Rathnakumar (Accused 2) attacked Vishwanathan with a Vadival sword, and Praveen (Accused 3) assaulted Ashraf (PW3) with an iron rod. The victims were allegedly discussing their party’s success in the elections when the attack occurred.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offenses including murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The High Court, however, upheld the conviction of Mani (Accused 1) under Section 302 IPC but acquitted the other accused (Accused 2-4) of murder, maintaining their conviction for lesser offenses under Sections 324 and 341 read with 34 of the IPC. The State of Kerala and Mani then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 300, IPC: Defines murder and its exceptions. Exception 4 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.
• Section 304, IPC: Deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I deals with culpable homicide with the intention of causing death, and Part II deals with culpable homicide with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
• Section 34, IPC: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 324, IPC: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 341, IPC: Deals with punishment for wrongful restraint.

Arguments

Appellant (Mani)’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he acted in self-defense, citing his own injuries sustained during the incident as documented in the Injury Report (Ex. D-2). He claimed that he was attacked by the victims, and his actions were in response to this initial aggression.
• Alternatively, the appellant argued that even if the court does not accept the plea of private defense, the incident was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation. Therefore, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, not Section 302.
• The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case was weak, pointing out that the victims were a large group moving towards Chozhiyamkod, and the accused were merely riding motorcycles. He contended that the confrontation was sudden, and he acted to protect himself.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the injured witnesses consistently testified that Mani instigated the attack. The State contended that all accused shared a common intention to harm the victims, as they arrived together on motorcycles, inflicted injuries, and fled together.
• The State asserted that the common intention could have formed at the spur of the moment when the accused saw the victims. The State argued that the attack was a result of a pre-planned murderous assault.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC.
2. Whether the accused acted in the exercise of the right of private defense.
3. Whether the other accused (Accused 2-4) shared a common intention with the appellant to cause the death of Soman.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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?

• The Supreme Court considered the principles of common intention as discussed in Dharam Pal and Others v. State of Haryana [AIR 1978 SC 1492]* and Nand Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2011 SC 2775]*, but held that the facts of the present case did not establish a common intention among the accused to commit murder.
• The Court relied on Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860*, particularly Exception 4, to conclude that the incident was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The Court referred to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to determine the appropriate punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The Court considered Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860*, but found that it was not applicable to the facts of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the nature of the fight and the lack of premeditation. The court emphasized that the incident occurred suddenly, without prior planning or a common intention to murder. The court also considered that the accused were not the initial aggressors and that the fight arose in the heat of passion.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, Mani, was not guilty of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. Instead, the court found him guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The court reasoned that the death occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and in the heat of passion, falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. The court stated:

“In view of sudden fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 is not made out.”

The court also noted that:

“Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death.”

The Court further clarified:

“Thus, the death of Soman is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC.”

The court rejected the appellant’s claim of private defense, noting that the force used was excessive. The court also dismissed the State’s appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the other accused of murder, as there was no evidence of a common intention to cause the death of Soman. The court modified the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 20,000.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction for murder requires proof of intention and premeditation.
• In cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the offense may be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The right of private defense does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary.
• Common intention under Section 34 of IPC must be proven and cannot be assumed.
• The court will consider the factual context and the circumstances of the incident to determine the appropriate offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the sentence of the appellant, Mani, to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 20,000.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases of sudden fights without premeditation, where the death is caused without the intention to cause death but with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, the offense is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, not murder under Section 302 of the IPC. This case reinforces the established legal principle under Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mani vs. State of Kerala clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide in cases of sudden fights. The court reduced the appellant’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the sudden nature of the fight. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining criminal liability and reinforces established legal principles.