Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a case of sudden fight: Hare Ram Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2024) INSC 936 (03 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 936
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man was convicted of murder for fatally stabbing his neighbor during a heated argument. The court examined the circumstances of the fight, the lack of premeditation, and the nature of the injury to determine if the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was appropriate. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on November 9, 2015, at approximately 10:00 a.m. The appellant, Hare Ram Yadav, who was a tenant of Ranglal Yadav (PW-5), became angry because some bricks were removed from his door. This led to a heated argument with Ranglal Yadav’s wife, the deceased. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Ranglal Yadav, the appellant started abusing the deceased. When she objected, he stabbed her in the chest with a knife. The deceased was initially taken to a local doctor and then to Manjhi Hospital, where she died during treatment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the FIR, a charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Chapra. The case was committed to the Sessions Court because it was exclusively triable by that court. The Additional Sessions Judge, based on the evidence presented, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions in question are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “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 (IPC): This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It has two parts: Part I addresses acts done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and Part II addresses acts done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury.
• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines murder, specifying the circumstances under which culpable homicide becomes murder. It also provides exceptions, including cases of grave and sudden provocation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that all the witnesses were interested witnesses, being relatives of the deceased, and their testimonies should be viewed with caution.
• It was contended that there was no other evidence to implicate the appellant besides the oral testimonies of the witnesses, and the alleged knife used in the crime was not recovered.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that the case did not fall under Section 302 of the IPC, as there was no premeditation. The incident occurred at the spur of the moment during a sudden fight, provoked by the deceased. Therefore, the case should fall under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent-State’s counsel argued that the testimonies of five eyewitnesses consistently implicated the appellant.
• It was submitted that the injury was on the chest, a vital body part, justifying the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC should be maintained, or altered to a lesser offense under Section 304 of the IPC, given the circumstances of the incident.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): The provision for punishment of murder.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): The provision for punishment of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): The provision defining murder and its exceptions.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the conviction from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC was influenced by several key factors. The court emphasized the absence of premeditation, the sudden nature of the fight, and the lack of evidence showing that the appellant acted in a cruel manner or took undue advantage of the situation. The court also considered the fact that it was a single injury inflicted during the heat of the moment, triggered by a trivial issue and provocation.

Logical Reasoning

The court reasoned that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel over a trivial issue, where the appellant lost control and assaulted the deceased with a knife. The court noted that there was no premeditation, and the appellant did not act in a cruel manner or take undue advantage of the situation. The court quoted the evidence of Bidya Sagar Yadav (PW-4), stating that the deceased told the appellant, “if he has courage, he may dare to kill her”, which further indicated the sudden nature of the fight. The court also emphasized that it was a single injury, and there was no evidence of any prior intention to cause death. The court stated, “We find that the incident has occurred on account of a grave and sudden fight in the heat of anger due to the provocation by the deceased.” The court also observed, “A perusal of the evidence would also reveal that it is a case of a single injury. There is no evidence to show that the appellant has acted in a cruel manner or has taken undue advantage of the situation.”

Key Takeaways

• A murder conviction can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act was committed during a sudden fight without premeditation.
• The court will consider the nature of the fight, the lack of premeditation, and whether the accused acted cruelly or took undue advantage of the situation.
• The testimonies of relatives cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship with the deceased, but they must be scrutinized with greater caution.
• The absence of the weapon used in the crime does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution’s case if there is consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, as he had already served approximately nine years and ten months in prison, which the court deemed sufficient for the offense. The court also directed that the fine imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge be paid within two weeks if it had not already been paid.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in instances of sudden fights without premeditation, where the accused does not act cruelly or take undue advantage, a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principle that the circumstances of the crime, particularly the presence or absence of premeditation and the nature of the fight, are crucial in determining the appropriate charge. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but it clarifies its application in cases of sudden fights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the appellant’s conviction from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC. The court found that the incident was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation, and the appellant did not act in a cruel manner. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith.