Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide: Rambir vs. State of NCT, Delhi (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 6, 2019

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.9781 of 2018)

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide if the act was committed during a sudden fight without premeditation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Rambir vs. State of NCT, Delhi, where the accused was initially convicted of murder for strangulating his wife with a ‘saria’ (iron rod). The court examined whether the act fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

On the intervening night of August 31, 2010, and September 1, 2010, Rambir allegedly strangled his wife, Sua, to death on the rooftop of their residence in Jafrabad, Delhi. The incident led to the registration of FIR No. 205/2010 against Rambir under Sections 302 (murder) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on September 1, 2010. The trial court convicted Rambir of murder under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Rambir appealed this conviction to the High Court, which upheld the trial court’s decision. The case then reached the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

The appellant, Rambir, argued that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel with his wife, without any premeditation. He claimed that he was under the influence of liquor and acted in the heat of passion when his wife tried to forcibly take money from his pocket. He contended that he did not intend to kill his wife and did not realize that his actions would cause her death. Rambir’s counsel argued that his case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The State, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the act of picking up a ‘saria’ and forcefully strangulating his wife was a cruel act and could not be considered as an act done in the heat of passion. They contended that the prosecution had proved the case of murder beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of four witnesses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the case of the appellant fell within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Specifically, the court examined whether the following conditions were met:

1. There was a sudden fight.
2. There was no premeditation.
3. The act was committed in the heat of passion.
4. The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the incident occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and in the heat of passion. The court also held that the act of strangulation, while resulting in death, was not extremely cruel, barbaric, torturous or brutal. The court concluded that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of the IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The sentence was reduced to 10 years of simple imprisonment.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh [1989] 2 SCC 217: The Supreme Court followed this precedent, noting that it supported the view that if a weapon is picked up in a sudden quarrel and causes a fatal injury, the accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The incident occurred during a sudden fight.
• There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant.
• The act was committed in the heat of passion.
• The act was not considered extremely cruel, barbaric, torturous or brutal.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that for Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to apply, there must be a sudden fight, no premeditation, the act must be committed in the heat of passion, and the offender must not have acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
• The court clarified that not every act of violence during a sudden fight would amount to murder. The circumstances of the fight, the nature of the weapon used, and the manner of the attack are important factors.
• The judgment provides a precedent for cases where a sudden quarrel escalates into violence, and the accused may be charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead of murder.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a death occurs during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and in the heat of passion, and the act is not extremely cruel, the accused can be convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of Section 302 of the IPC. This judgment clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, providing a significant interpretation of the legal provisions related to sudden fights and heat of passion.

Conclusion

In the case of Rambir vs. State of NCT, Delhi, the Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The court found that the incident occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and in the heat of passion. The court held that the act of strangulation with a ‘saria’, while resulting in death, was not extremely cruel. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to 10 years of simple imprisonment. This judgment provides clarity on the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Culpable Homicide

Child Category: Murder

FAQ

Q: What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

A: Murder, under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), involves the intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, under Section 304 of the IPC, involves causing death without the specific intention to kill, but with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Q: What is Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

A: Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies that not every act of violence during a sudden fight will amount to murder. The courts will consider the circumstances of the fight, the nature of the weapon used, and the manner of the attack to determine whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

Q: What does it mean for a conviction to be modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC?

A: It means that the court has reduced the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This usually results in a lesser sentence.

Q: What is the significance of the ‘saria’ in this case?

A: The ‘saria’ (iron rod) was the weapon used to strangulate the victim. The court considered that it was not a pre-planned weapon, but was picked up at the spur of the moment during a sudden fight, which was a factor in reducing the conviction.