LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the act of the accused constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra
Judgment Date: 3rd March 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 3rd March 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 172
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J. and Dipankar Datta, J.
Can a sudden fight during a heated exchange reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra. The court examined whether the actions of the accused, which resulted in a death, constituted murder or a lesser offense of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The key issue was whether the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel without premeditation, which could alter the nature of the crime. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta, with the opinion authored by Justice Dipankar Datta.
Case Background
On September 26, 2013, at approximately 5:00 PM, Nandkishor Korde was fatally stabbed. The appellant, Premchand, was accused of the murder. Additionally, Namdeo Korde, Vilas Charde, and Kunal Babhulkar sustained stab injuries during the same incident. Rekhabai Korde, the mother of the deceased, filed a report, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 302 (murder) and Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The post-mortem report confirmed that a stab injury to the neck was the cause of death.
Following the FIR, Police Inspector Bharat Thakre investigated the scene, finding blood stains and recovering a blood-stained knife, a wooden stick, chappals, spectacles, and a pen. Premchand was arrested and taken for a medical examination due to his injuries. A charge sheet was filed against Premchand under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 26, 2013, 5:00 PM | Nandkishor Korde murdered, Namdeo Korde, Vilas Charde, and Kunal Babhulkar injured. |
| September 27, 2013 | Post-mortem report recorded “stab injury to neck” as cause of death. |
| September 2013 | Police Inspector Bharat Thakre investigated the scene, recovered evidence, and arrested Premchand. |
| March 31, 2016 | Premchand filed a written statement (Ext. 96) under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| August 6, 2019 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, dismissed Premchand’s appeal. |
| March 3, 2023 | Supreme Court of India delivered judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted Premchand based on the statements of P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4, concluding that he murdered Nandkishor Korde and attempted to murder the others. The defense presented by Premchand was rejected, and he was sentenced accordingly. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the trial court’s decision, dismissing Premchand’s appeal.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines murder, and its exceptions. Exception 4 to Section 300 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 having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for murder, prescribing life imprisonment or the death penalty. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 addresses the punishment for an attempt to murder. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part II of Section 304 prescribes a punishment of imprisonment up to ten years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 allows the court to question the accused on the evidence against them. Sub-section (5) of Section 313 allows the accused to file a written statement.
The court also considered Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with how much of information received from an accused may be proved.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The prosecution failed to examine key independent witnesses who were present at the scene, suggesting they would not have supported the prosecution’s case.
- It is improbable that a 58-year-old man could inflict such injuries without any resistance from the victims or others present.
- The prosecution did not establish that the appellant brought the knife and initiated the attack.
- The eyewitnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4) were interested parties and thus not credible.
- P.W.2 and P.W.3 were involved in a false implication, suppressing the actual events.
- P.W.4 claimed to have snatched the knife but had no injuries, while the appellant sustained six injuries, which were not explained by the prosecution.
- No motive was established for the appellant to attack the victim, as the dispute was old.
- The knife was not recovered based on the appellant’s statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and there were contradictory statements about who introduced the knife.
- It was unlikely that the appellant would travel from Nagpur to Katol to commit murder in broad daylight.
- Even if the appellant caused the death, it was unintentional during a scuffle, making it a case under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, not Section 302.
State’s Arguments:
- The State supported the trial court’s judgment, arguing that the High Court had already re-evaluated the evidence and concurred with the Sessions Judge.
- There was no basis for interference, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Appellant | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eyewitness Testimony | Non-examination of independent witnesses | ✓ | |
| Improbability of attack by elderly person | ✓ | ||
| Lack of proof that appellant brought the knife | ✓ | ||
| Credibility of interested witnesses | ✓ | ||
| Incident Details | False implication and suppression of facts | ✓ | |
| Unexplained injuries on appellant | ✓ | ||
| Contradictory statements about the knife | ✓ | ||
| Motive | Lack of established motive | ✓ | |
| Circumstances | Improbability of travel for murder | ✓ | |
| Nature of Offence | Incident was a scuffle, not premeditated murder | ✓ | |
| Judgment | Trial court and High Court correctly assessed the evidence | ✓ |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
✓ Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder was correct.
✓ Whether the incident falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was correct | Incorrect | The court found that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel and not a premeditated murder. |
| Whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies | Yes | The court determined that the incident occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without undue advantage or cruel manner. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- State of U.P. vs Lakhmi [(1998) 4 SCC 336]: This case was referred to understand the value and utility of a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Sanatan Naskar vs. State of West Bengal [(2010) 8 SCC 249]: This case was cited to explain the object of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam [(2019) 13 SCC 289]: This case was used to highlight the rationale behind the requirement to comply with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Parminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab [(2020) 8 SCC 811]: This case was used to restate the importance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- M. Abbas vs. State of Kerala [(2001) 10 SCC 103]: This case was cited alongside Reena Hazarika to emphasize the importance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Statutes:
- Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder and its exceptions. The court specifically focused on Exception 4, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with punishment for murder.
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with punishment for attempt to murder.
- Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allows the court to question the accused on the evidence against them and allows the accused to file a written statement.
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Deals with how much of information received from an accused may be proved.
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. vs Lakhmi [(1998) 4 SCC 336] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the value of a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| Sanatan Naskar vs. State of West Bengal [(2010) 8 SCC 249] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the object of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam [(2019) 13 SCC 289] | Supreme Court of India | Highlighted the rationale behind complying with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| Parminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab [(2020) 8 SCC 811] | Supreme Court of India | Restated the importance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| M. Abbas vs. State of Kerala [(2001) 10 SCC 103] | Supreme Court of India | Emphasized the importance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Interpreted Exception 4 in relation to the facts of the case. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Discussed as the provision under which the appellant was initially convicted. |
| Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Discussed as the provision under which the appellant was also convicted for attempt to murder. |
| Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Applied to convict the appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. |
| Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Indian Parliament | Discussed in relation to the written statement of the accused. |
| Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Indian Parliament | Discussed in relation to the recovery of the knife. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Appellant | State | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-examination of independent witnesses | ✓ | Noted but not fatal to the case, as the Court relied on the accused’s statement. | |
| Improbability of attack by elderly person | ✓ | Accepted as a factor against premeditation. | |
| Lack of proof that appellant brought the knife | ✓ | Noted, but the Court focused on the circumstances of the fight. | |
| Credibility of interested witnesses | ✓ | The court considered the witnesses’ interest but noted the accused’s admission of presence and scuffle. | |
| False implication and suppression of facts | ✓ | The court noted the possibility of a false implication but relied on the accused’s written statement. | |
| Unexplained injuries on appellant | ✓ | The court noted the lack of investigation into the appellant’s injuries. | |
| Contradictory statements about the knife | ✓ | Noted, but the court focused on the overall circumstances. | |
| Lack of established motive | ✓ | The court found the lack of motive to be a factor against premeditation. | |
| Improbability of travel for murder | ✓ | Accepted as a factor against premeditation. | |
| Incident was a scuffle, not premeditated murder | ✓ | Accepted, leading to conviction under Section 304, Part II, IPC. | |
| Trial court and High Court correctly assessed the evidence | ✓ | Rejected, as the Supreme Court found the lower courts did not consider the accused’s written statement. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The court relied on the case laws to emphasize the importance of considering the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also relied on Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine that the case was one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- The court considered the principles laid down in State of U.P. vs Lakhmi [(1998) 4 SCC 336]*, Sanatan Naskar vs. State of West Bengal [(2010) 8 SCC 249]*, Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam [(2019) 13 SCC 289]*, Parminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab [(2020) 8 SCC 811]*, and M. Abbas vs. State of Kerala [(2001) 10 SCC 103]* to emphasize that the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be considered in its entirety.
- The court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to conclude that the incident was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the written statement (Ext. 96) of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court noted that the appellant’s statement admitted his presence at the scene and the occurrence of a scuffle, but also presented circumstances suggesting a lack of premeditation and a sudden fight. The court found it improbable that the appellant, an elderly man, would travel from Nagpur to Katol to commit murder in broad daylight with a knife. The court also emphasized that the incident occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, which qualified it under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s written statement (Ext. 96) | 30% |
| Sudden quarrel and lack of premeditation | 30% |
| Improbability of premeditated murder by an elderly person | 20% |
| Lack of motive | 10% |
| Injuries sustained by the appellant | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case, such as the sudden nature of the fight and the improbability of premeditation, than by the pure legal interpretation of the statutes.
The Court considered the appellant’s version of events as presented in his written statement (Ext. 96). The court noted that while the appellant admitted to being present at the scene and being involved in a scuffle, the circumstances suggested that the incident was a result of a sudden fight and not a premeditated act of murder.
The court also considered the fact that the appellant was an elderly person and that it was improbable that he would travel from Nagpur to Katol to commit murder in broad daylight. The court also noted that there was a lack of motive for the appellant to commit murder.
The court, therefore, concluded that the appellant’s act fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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.
The court also considered the fact that the appellant sustained injuries in the scuffle. The court noted that the police should have investigated the injuries suffered by the appellant, but refrained from issuing such direction due to the passage of time.
The court found that the lower courts had failed to consider the appellant’s written statement in its entirety and had not properly applied the principles of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court concluded that the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was incorrect and converted it to a conviction under Section 304, Part II, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court also noted that the appellant had already served more than nine years in prison and was in his late sixties, and therefore, considered the period already served as adequate punishment.
The court also allowed the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to rest.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the facts, the appellant’s statement, and the relevant legal provisions.
Key Takeaways
- A murder conviction can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation.
- The court must consider the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in its entirety, including both inculpatory and exculpatory circumstances.
- The presence of a sudden quarrel and the absence of premeditation are crucial factors in determining whether Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies.
- The court will consider the age and circumstances of the accused when assessing the likelihood of premeditation.
- The court will consider the lack of motive as a factor against premeditation.
- The courts must also consider the injuries sustained by the accused.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the release of the appellant from custody forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.
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 undue advantage or cruel manner, the offense is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that the circumstances of the fight and the state of mind of the accused are crucial in determining the nature of the offense. This is a change in the position of law as the lower courts had convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, converting the appellant’s conviction from murder under Section 302 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 emphasized that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and that the appellant’s written statement (Ext. 96) under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should have been considered in its entirety by the lower courts. The court ordered the release of the appellant, considering he had already served more than nine years in prison.
Category
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories:
- Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Culpable Homicide
- Murder
- Criminal Law
- Supreme Court Judgments
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra case?
A: The main issue was whether the actions of the accused constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, particularly focusing on whether the incident occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation.
Q: What is the significance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in this case?
A: Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 allows the court to question the accused on the evidence against them and allows the accused to file a written statement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the accused’s written statement must be considered in its entirety, including both inculpatory and exculpatory circumstances.
Q: What is Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court converted the appellant’s conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and ordered his release, considering he had already served more than nine years in prison.
Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?
A: Key takeaways include that a murder conviction can be reduced to culpable homicide if the act occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation. The court must consider the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in its entirety. The presence of a sudden quarrel and the absence of premeditation are crucial factors.