Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Sudden Fight Case: Nandlal vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 232

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a person be convicted of murder if the killing occurred during a sudden fight, without prior planning? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man was initially convicted of murder but had his conviction reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment clarifies the legal boundaries of what constitutes a ‘sudden fight’ and its implications under the Indian Penal Code.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute between Nandlal Baviskar (the appellant) and his relative, Dilip Waman Baviskar. In 2005, Dilip built a common wall between his property and Nandlal’s. Dilip asked Nandlal to share the construction costs, which Nandlal refused, leading to frequent quarrels. On May 16, 2006, at around 4:00 PM, a heated argument broke out between Dilip, his wife Sakhubai, and Nandlal. Dilip’s son, Ganesh, then called Gopichand Waman Baviskar (PW-1). Gopichand and his physically disabled brother, Lakhichand (the deceased), arrived to mediate. During this, Lakhichand verbally abused Nandlal, who then hit Lakhichand with a stick on his back. In response, Gopichand hit Nandlal on the head with a stick. Nandlal then went to his house and returned with a gupti (a type of knife), accompanied by Parshuram and Sanjay. Nandlal attacked Lakhichand with the gupti on his left armpit, while Parshuram and Sanjay also assaulted Lakhichand. Lakhichand sustained severe injuries and died at the hospital.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court found Nandlal guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld Nandlal’s conviction but acquitted the other two accused. Nandlal then appealed to the Supreme Court, which limited its review to the nature of the offense and the sentence.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue in this case revolves around Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder. However, Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC provides an exception where culpable homicide is not murder. This exception applies when:

• ✓ The act is committed without premeditation.
• ✓ It occurs in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
• ✓ It is upon a sudden quarrel.
• ✓ The offender does not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner.

The court also considered Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. However, the High Court acquitted the other two accused, stating that there was no common intention to commit murder. The court also considered Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The court quoted from the judgment in Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa (2004) 11 SCC 395, which stated:

“For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The incident occurred during a sudden quarrel.
• ✓ After being attacked by Gopichand, the appellant went to his house and returned, and in a sudden fight, attacked the deceased.
• ✓ There was no intention to commit murder, and the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• ✓ Relied on Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 796, where a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was modified to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• ✓ The appellant went to his house, got a gupti, and returned with other accused, indicating it was not a sudden fight.
• ✓ The appellant’s conduct shows the occurrence was not in the heat of a sudden fight, and therefore, the offense is murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
• ✓ The incident was not a sudden fight, as there was a time gap between the first incident (when the appellant was hit) and the second incident (when the appellant returned with a weapon).

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case for modification of his conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Court relied on Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa (2004) 11 SCC 395* to define the conditions for Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• ✓ The Court followed the principle laid down in Pappu v. State of M.P. (2006) 7 SCC 391* which reiterated the principles of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• ✓ The Court considered Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 796*, where a similar conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, supporting the appellant’s argument.
• ✓ The Court distinguished the facts from Asif Khan v. State of Maharashtra*, stating that the facts of the present case stand on a different footing.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the incident occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel. The court emphasized that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant. The court also considered the fact that the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner.

The court’s reasoning was based on the factual sequence of events and the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The court noted that the appellant’s actions were a direct result of the sudden quarrel and the heat of passion.

The court considered the argument that the appellant had gone to his house and returned with a weapon, but it held that this was a continuation of the same incident and not a separate, premeditated act. The court emphasized that the fight occurred in the heat of passion and that the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. The court quoted from the judgment:

“The house of the appellant, being the next house of Dilip, there was no time gap between the first incident and the incident that followed, in which the appellant inflicted gupti injury on the left armpit of the deceased. Both the incidents cannot be said to be two different parts but are integral part of the same incident.”

“Having sustained a stick blow from Gopichand-PW-1, in the sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, the appellant inflicted the injury on deceased Lakhichand.”

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A conviction for murder can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act occurs during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner.
• ✓ The term “sudden fight” implies that there is no time for passions to cool down.
• ✓ The court will consider the entire sequence of events to determine if the incident was part of the same quarrel or a separate, premeditated act.
• ✓ The nature of the weapon used and the manner of retaliation are important factors in determining whether the offender took undue advantage.

This judgment clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and provides guidance for future cases involving sudden fights. It highlights that the court will look at the entire context of the incident to determine the nature of the offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced him to twelve years of imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that if a death occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation, and the offender does not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner, the conviction can be modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the context of the incident and the absence of premeditation when determining the nature of the offense. There is no change in the previous position of law but the court has re-emphasized the importance of considering the context of the incident and the absence of premeditation when determining the nature of the offense.

Conclusion

In the case of Nandlal vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reduced the appellant’s murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court found that the incident occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and that the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner. This judgment underscores the significance of considering the context of an incident when determining the nature of an offense and provides clarity on the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.