Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide in sudden fight case: Chenda @ Chanda Ram vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) INSC 571 (27 August 2013)

Case Background

On February 26, 1993, in a village in Chhattisgarh, a minor incident escalated into a fatal confrontation. Kishore Kumar, the son of Ramgulal, threw a stone at a cat. The cat, while jumping, landed on the terrace of Anjoriram, where gram was kept for drying. This led to a series of events that resulted in Ramgulal’s death.

Anjoriram scolded Kishore Kumar, and Chanda Ram beat him with a cane. Heminbai, Kishore’s mother, intervened, leading to a verbal altercation. She then asked her son to call his father, Ramgulal. A scuffle broke out between Ramgulal and Anjoriram. During this, Chanda Ram struck Ramgulal on the head with a tekani, a piece of wood used for supporting bullock carts. Ramgulal fell down and later died in the hospital.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the case was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention). After Ramgulal’s death, the charges were converted to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (murder) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Sessions Court convicted Chanda Ram under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. However, Anjoriram was acquitted due to lack of evidence. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s decision, stating that the fatal blow was intentionally inflicted on a vital part of the body.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the case in light of several key provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines culpable homicide as causing death with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines murder. It states that culpable homicide is murder if the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous and will likely cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death. The section also includes exceptions where culpable homicide is not considered murder.

Specifically, the court focused on Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The explanation to this exception clarifies that it does not matter which party offered the provocation or committed the first assault.

Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It has two parts: the first part applies when the act is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and the second part applies when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he did not intend to commit murder.
• The single blow with the stick was on the head, but it was on the spur of the moment, without premeditation, during a fight.
• There was no prior enmity between the parties.
• Therefore, the case falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that a single blow does not exclude the offence from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The fatal blow was on a vital organ (the head) with great force, resulting in serious injuries.
• The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
• Both intention and knowledge are evident from the conduct of the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the conduct of the appellant in inflicting the fatal blow was intentional and with knowledge, or with knowledge only?
2. Whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
3. If the case falls under Exception 4, whether the offence falls under the first part of Section 304 or the second part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key authorities to reach its decision.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on several aspects to reach its conclusion. The absence of premeditation, the sudden nature of the fight, and the lack of intention to cause death were significant factors. The court also considered the fact that the fight was a result of a trivial issue and that the accused was young with no prior criminal history. The court emphasized that the fatal blow occurred during a scuffle where the deceased had overpowered the first accused, which acted as an immediate provocation for the appellant.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court noted that the fight was sudden, without premeditation, and without the appellant taking undue advantage or acting cruelly. The court also determined that the offense fell under the second part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as there was no intention to cause death, but there was knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.

The court stated, “There is no evidence at all as to whether the appellant intended to hit on the head only or elsewhere on the body. The scuffling parties being in motion, it could easily have happened that the blow fell on the head unintentionally.”

The court also observed, “There is only one hit. There is nothing to show that there was any cruelty involved by inflicting any other injury or by any other conduct on the part of the appellant so as to hold that the appellant was taking any undue advantage of the situation or that he behaved in a cruel or unusual manner.”

The court further noted, “The evolution of the incident would show that it was in the midst of a sudden fight. There is no criminal background or adverse history of the appellant. It was a trivial quarrel among the villagers on account of a simple issue.”

The Supreme Court reduced the appellant’s sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years of imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000. The court directed that the fine should be paid as compensation to the widow and child of the deceased. If the appellant defaults on the fine, he would have to undergo an additional two years of imprisonment. If the appellant had already served the term, he was to be released forthwith.

Key Takeaways

• A fatal blow during a sudden fight may not always be considered murder.
• The court will consider the circumstances of the fight, the weapon used, and the intent of the accused.
• If the case falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the conviction may be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The court will consider factors such as the absence of premeditation, the sudden nature of the fight, and the lack of intention to cause death.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the fine of Rs. 50,000 should be paid as compensation to the widow and child of the deceased. In the event of the appellant defaulting on the payment, he would have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two years.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a fatal blow during a sudden fight, without premeditation and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner, falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case clarifies that even if a fatal blow is struck on a vital part of the body, it does not automatically lead to a murder conviction. The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances of the fight and the intent of the accused. This judgment reinforces the principle that culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a distinct offense from murder, and it highlights the importance of considering all factors before determining the appropriate charge.

Conclusion

In the case of Chenda @ Chanda Ram vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court reduced the appellant’s murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court found that the fatal blow occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and without the intention to cause death. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the circumstances of a fight and the intent of the accused when determining the appropriate charge. The court’s decision provides a nuanced approach to cases involving sudden fights and clarifies the legal principles surrounding culpable homicide.