Introduction


Date of the Judgment: July 9, 2019
Citation: Sita Ram vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No(s). 1014 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).9396 of 2018)
Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna

Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide if the act occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of *Sita Ram vs. State of NCT of Delhi*. The court examined whether the actions of the accused fell under the exception to murder, specifically Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case revolves around a fatal altercation that arose from a dispute over alleged electricity tapping.

The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna. The judgment was delivered by Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

On July 2, 1990, at approximately 10:00 PM, Mangal Singh and his wife, Kala Wati (PW-19), were returning home after closing their tea shop in Kardam Puri. Near the shop of Girdhari Lal (A-1), they encountered Girdhari Lal (A-1), Sita Ram (A-2), Ram Pal (A-3), and Ram Phal (A-4). Mangal Singh questioned Girdhari Lal (A-1) about allegedly tapping electricity from an electric pole. This led to an argument, during which Ram Pal (A-3) struck Mangal Singh on the head. Sita Ram (A-2) and Ram Phal (A-4) also assaulted Mangal Singh with a danda and hockey stick, respectively. Kala Wati (PW-19), who tried to intervene, was also injured.

Bystanders, including Raj Kumar (PW-9), Leela Wati (PW-4), and Jai Singh (PW-14), attempted to help but were also injured by the accused. Mangal Singh sustained severe injuries and later died. Raj Kumar (PW-9) filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 307, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was later altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Date Event
July 2, 1990, 10:00 PM Incident occurred: Mangal Singh was attacked and injured.
Mangal Singh succumbed to injuries.
FIR registered under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, later altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Trial Court convicted A-2 to A-4 under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
February 15, 2018 High Court of Delhi affirmed the conviction of Sita Ram (A-2).
July 9, 2019 Supreme Court modified the conviction of Sita Ram (A-2) under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Sita Ram (A-2), Ram Pal (A-3), and Ram Phal (A-4) under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Brij Mohan (A-5), Rajender (A-6), and Subhash (A-9) were convicted under Section 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment. Rajesh (A-7) and Manphool (A-8) were acquitted. Girdhari (A-1) died during the trial, and charges against him abated.

Sita Ram (A-2) appealed to the High Court of Delhi, which dismissed his appeal on February 15, 2018, upholding his conviction and sentence. Ram Pal (A-3) and Ram Phal (A-4) died during the pendency of the appeal, and charges against them abated. The High Court partly allowed the appeal of Brij Mohan (A-5), Rajender (A-6), and Subhash (A-9), affirming their conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already served and enhancing the fine to Rs. 10,000.

See also  Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case: Jagjeet Singh & Ors vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr (2022)

Sita Ram (A-2) then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The central legal issue pertains to whether the actions of the accused fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines murder, but Exception 4 states:

“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 court examined whether the events of the case met the criteria of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which would reduce the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Arguments

Appellant’s Argument (Sita Ram):

  • The appellant argued that the incident was not premeditated. The altercation began when Mangal Singh questioned Girdhari Lal (A-1) about tapping electricity, leading to a sudden quarrel.
  • The appellant contended that the fight occurred in the heat of passion and without any prior planning.
  • The appellant submitted that the actions of the accused should be considered under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, thus reducing the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Respondent’s Argument (State of NCT of Delhi):

  • The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • The respondent reiterated the findings of the High Court, stating that the evidence and materials on record supported the conviction for murder.
  • The respondent contended that the actions of the accused did not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions by Appellant Sub-Submissions by Respondent
Nature of the Incident ✓ Incident was not premeditated.
✓ Sudden quarrel led to the fight.
✓ Fight occurred in the heat of passion.		 ✓ High Court correctly convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
✓ Evidence supports the murder conviction.
Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ✓ Actions fall under Exception 4, reducing the offense to culpable homicide. ✓ Actions did not fall under Exception 4.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be sustained.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue How the Court Dealt with It
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be sustained. The Court found that the incident occurred without premeditation during a sudden fight in the heat of passion. The accused were not armed beforehand, and the injuries, while fatal, did not indicate undue advantage or cruel behavior. Thus, the court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Authorities

The court considered the following legal provisions:

See also  Contempt of Court: Supreme Court Addresses Scandalous Conduct in Suraz India Trust Case (29 September 2021)

  • Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder.
  • Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines when culpable homicide is not murder.
  • Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Prescribes punishment for murder.
  • Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Prescribes punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
  • Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Authority Court How Considered
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Explained and applied to define murder and its exceptions.
Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Applied to determine if the case fell under the exception for sudden fights.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Discussed in relation to the initial conviction for murder.
Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Applied as the basis for modifying the conviction.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Discussed in relation to the common intention of the accused.

Judgment

Submission by the Parties How it was treated by the Court
Appellant’s submission that the incident was not premeditated and happened in the heat of passion. The Court agreed that there was no premeditation and the fight occurred during a sudden quarrel.
Appellant’s submission that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies. The Court held that the case met the criteria of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Respondent’s submission that the High Court’s conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be upheld. The Court did not agree with the respondent and modified the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court reasoned that the incident was not premeditated and occurred during a sudden fight in the heat of passion. The accused were not armed beforehand, and the injuries, while fatal, did not indicate undue advantage or cruel behavior.

Authority How it was viewed by the Court
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court used the definition of murder to assess whether the case fell within its ambit or under an exception.
Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court applied the exception to determine that the act was not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court acknowledged the initial conviction under this section but found it not applicable in light of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court applied this section as it was appropriate for the offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court considered the common intention of the accused in the commission of the offense.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • Lack of premeditation: The court emphasized that the fight was not planned and arose from a sudden quarrel.
  • Sudden fight in the heat of passion: The court noted that the altercation escalated quickly, indicating that the actions were committed in the heat of passion.
  • Absence of undue advantage: The court found that the accused did not take undue advantage of the situation or act in a cruel manner.
  • Nature of injuries: The court considered the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, noting that they were not indicative of a pre-planned attack.
See also  Supreme Court Converts Dismissal to Voluntary Retirement in Rathin Ghosh vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (29 July 2019)
Reason Percentage
Lack of premeditation 30%
Sudden fight in the heat of passion 30%
Absence of undue advantage 25%
Nature of injuries 15%
Category Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%
Issue: Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained?
↓
Was there premeditation?
No
↓
Was there a sudden fight in the heat of passion?
Yes
↓
Did the accused take undue advantage or act cruelly?
No
↓
Conclusion: Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized that the absence of premeditation and the sudden nature of the fight were key factors in reducing the conviction.

The Court observed that, “As discussed earlier the occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.”

The Court further noted, “The appellant-Sita Ram (A-2) was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed.”

The Court also stated that, “Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased-Mangal Singh, it cannot be said that the appellant-Sita Ram (A-2) and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased-Mangal Singh in attacking him.”

Key Takeaways

  • The judgment clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that a sudden fight without premeditation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
  • It highlights the importance of establishing the absence of premeditation, the sudden nature of the fight, and the lack of undue advantage or cruel behavior in such cases.
  • The case serves as a reminder that not all fatal altercations constitute murder, and the specific circumstances of each case must be carefully examined.
  • The decision underscores that the court will consider the nature of injuries, whether the accused were armed, and the overall context of the incident in determining the appropriate charge.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is modified to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant-Sita Ram was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a death occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly, the offense is 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. This judgment reinforces the importance of the exception provided under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In *Sita Ram vs. State of NCT of Delhi*, the Supreme Court modified the appellant’s conviction from murder under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found that the incident occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the accused taking undue advantage. This case highlights the importance of the exception provided under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and serves as a reminder that not all fatal altercations qualify as murder.

Source: Sita Ram vs. State of NCT of Delhi