Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a sudden fight case: Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017) INSC 361 (10 April 2017)

Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide if the death occurred during a sudden fight? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, examining the nuances of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a killing during a sudden fight can be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, with Justice R.K. Agrawal authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between two groups of people regarding the irrigation of their fields. This dispute led to prior incidents of assault and ongoing legal proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On February 17, 1995, members of both groups were present at the court of the Executive Magistrate in Faridkot.

A verbal altercation occurred when Surain Singh, the appellant, objected to the presence of Bhajan Singh, who was related to the complainant but not a party to the proceedings. This argument escalated into a physical fight. Surain Singh used a Kirpan (a ceremonial dagger) to injure Bhajan Singh, Mander Singh, and Harbans Singh. Darshan Singh, from the same group as Surain Singh, also attacked Santa Singh with a Kirpan.

Harbans Singh and Santa Singh later died from their injuries. The complainant, Amrik Singh, filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Faridkot Police Station. The appellant, Surain Singh, was charged under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 326, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was then committed to the Sessions Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, convicted Surain Singh under Sections 302, 307, and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Surain Singh appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court upheld his conviction for the murder of Harbans Singh but acquitted him of the murder of Santa Singh. Surain Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court focused on Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines murder. It also examined Exception 4 to Section 300, which states that 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 taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“300. Murder–.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.”

Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Exception 4– 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 also referred to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of Section 304 addresses cases with intent or knowledge of causing death, while Part II covers cases with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but without intention.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court itself found that the incident was a sudden fight without premeditation. Therefore, the conviction should have been under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, instead of Section 302. The appellant contended that he did not act in a cruel manner, and the fight occurred in the heat of passion.

The State argued that the appellant acted in a cruel manner by inflicting injuries on multiple people, including the deceased. They contended that the use of a Kirpan and the nature of the injuries showed that the appellant had the intention to cause death or grievous injury.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that he relied on the High Court’s own finding of a “sudden fight” to argue for a reduction in the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case for conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• State of A.P. vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another (1976) 4 SCC 382: The Supreme Court of India discussed the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, explaining that all murders are culpable homicide, but not all culpable homicides are murder.
• Budhi Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2012) 13 SCC 663: The Supreme Court of India discussed the doctrine of sudden and grave provocation and emphasized that the behavior of the assailant must be that of a reasonable person.
• Kikar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1993) 4 SCC 238: The Supreme Court of India discussed the conditions for applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including the requirement of a mutual combat and that the parties must be on equal footing.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s actions fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found that the fight was sudden, without premeditation, and the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner. Therefore, the conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court also analyzed how the authorities were used:

• State of A.P. vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another (1976) 4 SCC 382: The court used this case to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide.
• Budhi Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2012) 13 SCC 663: The court used this case to understand the concept of sudden and grave provocation.
• Kikar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1993) 4 SCC 238: The court used this case to examine the conditions for applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court stated:

“The conduct of the appellant-accused that he at once took out his Kirpan and started giving blows to the opposite party proves that the attack was not premeditated and it was because of the spur of the moment and without any intention to cause death.”

“In the instant case, the injuries caused were the result of blow with a small Kirpan and it cannot be presumed that the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injuries.”

“Thus, in entirety, considering the factual scenario of the case on hand, the legal evidence on record and in the background of legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra, the inevitable conclusion is that the act of the appellant-accused was not a cruel act and the accused did not take undue advantage of the deceased.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the fight was sudden and without premeditation. The court emphasized that the appellant did not act cruelly or take undue advantage of the situation. The court also considered that the appellant used a small Kirpan and that the injuries were not inflicted on vital organs. The absence of intention to cause death was also a crucial factor.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ In cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the conviction may be reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• ✓ The court will consider whether the offender acted cruelly or took undue advantage of the situation.
• ✓ The intention of the offender is a key factor in determining the appropriate charge.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a sudden fight without premeditation, where the offender does not act cruelly or take undue advantage, and there is no intention to cause death, the conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than Section 302. This case reinforces the importance of considering the specific circumstances of a fight when determining the appropriate charge.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By reducing the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the court emphasized that not all killings in a fight constitute murder. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the nature of the fight, the conduct of the offender, and the intention behind the act.