Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Mohd. Rafiq vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 15 September 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 615
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide if the act was not premeditated and lacked clear intent to kill? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where a truck driver was convicted of murder for the death of a police officer. The court examined the nuances between murder and culpable homicide, ultimately altering the conviction. This judgment clarifies the importance of establishing intent in cases of homicide.

Case Background

On the evening of March 9, 1992, the Jabera Police Station received information about a truck (CPQ 4115) that had broken through a Forest Department barrier and collided with a motorcycle. Sub-Inspector (SI) D.K. Tiwari and other officers positioned themselves on the main road. When the truck, driven by Mohd. Rafiq, approached, SI Tiwari signaled it to stop. Instead of stopping, Mohd. Rafiq allegedly tried to speed away. SI Tiwari then boarded the truck from the left side. According to the prosecution, Mohd. Rafiq pushed SI Tiwari off the truck, causing him to fall under the rear wheels, resulting in his death. Mohd. Rafiq then fled the scene but was later arrested and charged with murder.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial was conducted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, where the prosecution presented 18 witnesses, including eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-10, PW-11, PW-14, and PW-15), along with the postmortem report and other exhibits. The defense presented three witnesses, including Majeed (DW-1), who claimed to be the truck’s conductor. The Trial Court convicted Mohd. Rafiq and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case revolve around the definitions of culpable homicide and murder as defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

✓ Section 299 of the IPC 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 he is likely by such act to cause death. “Whoever causes death by doing an act 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 he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”

✓ Section 300 of the IPC defines murder as culpable homicide with specific aggravating factors. “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or — Secondly —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or — Thirdly —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or — Fourthly —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

✓ Section 304 of the IPC provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The defense argued that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-10, PW-14, and PW-15) contained significant contradictions and exaggerations.
• It was pointed out that the prosecution’s version of SI Tiwari boarding the truck from the left and being pushed was improbable, as two witnesses stated that Mohd. Rafiq continued to drive the truck.
• The defense noted that PW-2’s statements during the investigation did not mention how Mohd. Rafiq was identified at night, while his deposition stated that he could identify him due to the light from the cabin and street lights.
• PW-2 improved his statement by adding that Mohd. Rafiq freed his left hand to push SI Tiwari while driving with his right hand, and that the truck sped up after slowing down, which was not in his initial statement.
• The defense also argued that it was improbable for four people at different locations to observe the incident in the same manner, given the darkness.
• There was no evidence of motive or intent to commit murder, as SI Tiwari was in plain clothes, and Mohd. Rafiq may not have known he was a public servant.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the courts had correctly weighed the evidence and concluded that Mohd. Rafiq deliberately pushed SI Tiwari off the truck.
• Mohd. Rafiq had threatened to kill SI Tiwari if he interfered with the truck’s movement.
• The medical evidence supported the prosecution’s version that the truck ran over SI Tiwari, causing multiple injuries, including a ruptured spleen, intestines, and a cracked skull.
• The State contended that the contradictions in the witnesses’ depositions were minor and did not outweigh the overall evidence, which showed that SI Tiwari was deliberately pushed and run over, establishing the intent to kill.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. What is the precise nature of the criminal liability of the appellant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

✓ State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr [1976 (4) SCC 382]: This case was cited to highlight the distinction between culpable homicide and murder. The court noted that “culpable homicide” is genus and “murder” its specie. All “murder” is “culpable homicide” but not vice – versa. It further elaborated that culpable homicide can be of three degrees, with murder being the greatest form and punishable under Section 300 of the IPC.

✓ Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh [(2006) 11 SCC 444]: This case was referred to for the considerations that should weigh with the courts in discerning whether an act is punishable as murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court emphasized the need to carefully examine the intention behind the act and the circumstances surrounding it.

✓ Section 299 of the IPC: As discussed earlier, this section defines culpable homicide, which involves causing death with a specific intent or knowledge.

✓ Section 300 of the IPC: This section defines murder, which is a more severe form of culpable homicide with specific aggravating circumstances.

✓ Section 304 of the IPC: This section provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The court noted that while the prosecution had established the basic facts of the incident, there were inconsistencies and exaggerations in the eyewitness accounts. The court also found that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven that Mohd. Rafiq had the intention to kill SI Tiwari or that he knew that his actions would likely cause death.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• Lack of Premeditation: The court found that the act was not pre-meditated, and there was no evidence of a prior plan to harm SI Tiwari.
• Absence of Animus: There was no prior animosity between Mohd. Rafiq and SI Tiwari, suggesting that the act was not driven by personal vendetta.
• Reaction in the Heat of Passion: The court concluded that Mohd. Rafiq’s actions were a reaction to SI Tiwari boarding the truck, and the disproportionate response appeared to be in the heat of passion or rage.
• Doubt on Intent to Kill: The court was not convinced that Mohd. Rafiq had the intent to kill SI Tiwari. The evidence did not conclusively prove that he knew the deceased would fall under the rear wheels of the truck.

The court noted, “Even if the prosecution version that the appellant having threatened to kill the deceased were to be accepted, one cannot set much store by it, because no motive or no animus against the deceased was proved.”

The court also observed, “In these circumstances, it can however be inferred that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause SI Tiwari’s death.”

The court further stated, “Therefore, it is held that the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was not appropriate.”

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of murder, but rejected them due to the lack of clear intent to kill and the inconsistencies in the evidence. The court concluded that the act was more aligned with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Key Takeaways

• Distinction between Murder and Culpable Homicide: The judgment reinforces the critical distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing that not all acts resulting in death constitute murder.
• Importance of Intent: The case highlights the importance of establishing the intention of the accused in cases of homicide. The court must carefully analyze the circumstances to determine whether the act was premeditated and with the intent to kill.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment serves as a precedent for cases involving similar circumstances, where the court must carefully consider the evidence and intent before convicting an accused of murder.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intent to kill, and mere inconsistencies in witness statements can weaken the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The sentence was modified from rigorous imprisonment for life to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, while the fine was left undisturbed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to cause death or knew that their actions would likely cause death. In the absence of such proof, the conviction can be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, which is applicable when the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, but without the clear intent to kill. The judgment reinforces the importance of distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide and emphasizes the need to carefully analyze the circumstances and intent behind the act.

Conclusion

In the case of Mohd. Rafiq v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court modified the conviction of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court found that while Mohd. Rafiq’s actions resulted in the death of SI Tiwari, there was a lack of clear intent to kill and the act was not premeditated. This judgment underscores the importance of establishing intent in homicide cases and reinforces the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories:

• Section 299, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Culpable Homicide
• Murder
• Criminal Law

FAQ

Q: What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?
A: Murder, as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is a severe form of culpable homicide where the act is done with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. Culpable homicide, under Section 299 of the IPC, is 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 he is likely by such act to cause death. The key difference lies in the degree of intent and the circumstances surrounding the act.

Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider in reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide?
A: The Supreme Court considered factors such as the lack of premeditation, the absence of animosity between the accused and the deceased, the possibility that the act was a reaction in the heat of passion, and the inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts. The court also found that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the intent to kill.

Q: What is the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
A: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. The punishment can be imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and may also include a fine, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?
A: This judgment serves as a precedent for cases involving similar circumstances, emphasizing the importance of establishing intent in homicide cases. It highlights that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to kill, and mere inconsistencies in witness statements can weaken the prosecution’s case. The judgment also reinforces the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.