Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Hansaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: July 04, 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J

Can a person be convicted for murder if the death occurred during a sudden fight where the accused did not have any intention to kill the deceased? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Hansaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh, where the court reduced the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court held that the accused did not have any intention to kill the deceased. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

On November 10, 2005, there was a dispute between the Appellant, Hansaram, and Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-3) regarding non-payment of Rs. 130. Later that evening, Hansaram and his son assaulted Krishna Kumar Sahu. The next day, November 11, 2005, Ram Kumar Sahu (the deceased) and his brother Dev Kumar Sahu (PW-6) went to answer the call of nature. Hansaram attacked Ram Kumar Sahu with a tangi (axe), causing a fatal head injury. Dev Kumar Sahu (PW-6) threw a stick at Hansaram, causing the tangi to fall from his hand. Ram Kumar Sahu was taken to the hospital, where he later died. Initially, a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to murder) was registered, which was later converted to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (murder) after the death of Ram Kumar Sahu.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial Court convicted Hansaram under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The High Court dismissed Hansaram’s appeal against the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Hansaram appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the punishment for murder:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

✓ Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder:

“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:

• Hansaram argued that he went to answer the call of nature when he was attacked by Ram Kumar Sahu, Krishna Kumar Sahu, Dev Kumar Sahu and Shail Kumar.
• He stated that Krishna Kumar Sahu was holding a tangi, and others were armed with lathis.
• He argued that he was attacked from behind, and Krishna Kumar Sahu assaulted him with a tangi on his head.
• He claimed that in self-defense, he swung the tangi, which accidentally hit Ram Kumar Sahu.
• He contended that he became unconscious after the incident and was later admitted to the hospital for treatment.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that Hansaram was responsible for the death of Ram Kumar Sahu.
• They presented evidence that Hansaram attacked Ram Kumar Sahu with a tangi, causing a fatal head injury.
• They contended that the injuries sustained by Hansaram were a result of the scuffle and not an act of self-defense.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the Appellant is liable for conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Ram Kumar Sahu.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any cases or books in this judgment.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence showing premeditation or intention to kill Ram Kumar Sahu. The Court noted that the incident occurred during a sudden fight, and the Appellant swung the tangi in self-defense. The injuries sustained by the Appellant also indicated that he was part of the scuffle. The Court emphasized that while the Appellant was responsible for the death of Ram Kumar Sahu, the act did not constitute murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the Appellant swung the tangi in self-defense. The Court stated that, “There is no doubt in our mind that the Accused is responsible for the death of Ram Kumar Sahu.” However, the Court also noted that, “There is no evidence to show that the murder of Ram Kumar Sahu was a premeditated one. We are convinced that the Appellant did not have any intention to kill Ram Kumar Sahu.” The Court concluded that, “Appellant swung the tangi which hit Ram Kumar Sahu on his head and due to the said injury Ram Kumar Sahu had died.” The Court held that the Appellant did not commit murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Court considered the possibility that the Appellant might have intended to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, which would have made it culpable homicide. However, the Court found that there was no intention to kill, and the incident occurred during a sudden fight. The Court found that the circumstances did not indicate a premeditated act or intention to cause death.

The Court held that the Appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not justified. The Court held that the Appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and convicted him under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court sentenced the Appellant to seven years imprisonment. The Court also directed that if the Appellant had already completed seven years of imprisonment, he should be released.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ In cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the accused may not be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ If the accused did not have the intention to kill, the conviction may be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ The Court will consider the circumstances of the incident, including whether it was a sudden fight and whether the accused acted in self-defense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the Appellant had completed seven years of imprisonment, he should be released forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a case of sudden fight without premeditation or intention to kill, the accused cannot be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conviction can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the importance of intention and premeditation in determining the appropriate charge.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and convicted him under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to seven years of imprisonment. The Court held that there was no evidence of premeditation or intention to kill, and the incident occurred during a sudden fight. The Court emphasized that the Appellant was responsible for the death of Ram Kumar Sahu, but the act did not constitute murder.