Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide: Tularam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2 May 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 383

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

When does a fight turn into murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Tularam vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court examined whether the accused, who fatally injured another during a sudden altercation, intended to kill the victim or had only the knowledge that his actions could cause death. This distinction is crucial in determining whether the offense is murder or culpable homicide. The bench comprised Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, with Justice Madan B. Lokur authoring the judgment.

Case Background

On June 9, 2002, a quarrel erupted between Ramnath and Raju at Ramnath’s flourmill around 6 p.m. Later, at about 7:30 p.m., after Ramnath closed his mill and was heading home, Raju accosted him again, leading to another altercation. This time, Bipatlal Lodhi (Raju’s grandfather), Santu (Ramnath’s nephew), and Bhadri Lodhi (Ramnath’s brother) joined the fray. The altercation escalated further when Tularam (Raju’s uncle) arrived with a ballam (a spear-like weapon), and Sakharam joined with a lathi (a wooden stick). During the ensuing violence, Tularam struck Bhadri Lodhi on the left side of his chest with the ballam, causing him to fall. Bhadri Lodhi was taken home and declared dead.

Several individuals sustained injuries during the altercation, including Sakharam, who was accused of hitting Santu with a lathi. The prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses, including Ramnath (PW1), Maltibai (PW-3), Mahasingh (PW-5), Shanta Bai (PW-7), Singh Singh Gond (PW-8), Jogi Lodhi (PW-10), and Hori Lal (PW-11). These witnesses confirmed the altercation and identified Tularam as the person who struck Bhadri Lodhi with the ballam. The post-mortem examination, conducted by Dr. S.N. Bhaskar (PW17), revealed a penetrating wound on the left side of Bhadri Lodhi’s chest.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in this case.

• Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide as causing death by:
  • Intention of causing death.
  • Intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
• Section 300 of the IPC defines murder as culpable homicide with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or when the act is imminently dangerous and likely to cause death. However, 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.”
  
  The explanation to this exception further clarifies:
  
  “It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.”
• Section 304 of the IPC provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder:
  • Part I: If the act is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment may extend to imprisonment for life.
  • Part II: 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, the punishment may extend to imprisonment for 10 years.

Arguments

The primary argument centered around whether Tularam intended to cause the death of Bhadri Lodhi or merely had the knowledge that his actions could cause death.

The defense argued that the incident was a result of a sudden fight, and there was no premeditation. They contended that Tularam did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and did not take undue advantage of the situation. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the use of a dangerous weapon like the ballam and the nature of the injury indicated an intention to cause death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether Tularam had the intention of causing the death of Bhadri Lodhi.

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:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 299 of the IPC, which defines culpable homicide.
• Section 300 of the IPC, which defines murder and its exceptions, particularly Exception 4.
• Section 304 of the IPC, which provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the facts and evidence in light of the legal provisions and precedents.

The Court considered the following authorities:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence demonstrating Tularam’s intention to cause death. The Court emphasized that the fight was sudden, without premeditation, and that Tularam did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. The Court also noted that Tularam did not take undue advantage of the situation. The Court’s reasoning focused on the absence of an intention to kill, rather than the mere act of inflicting a fatal injury.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the sudden nature of the fight and the absence of premeditation. However, legal provisions like Section 300 exception 4 and Section 304 of the IPC were also critical in the court’s decision-making process.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that Tularam intended to cause death, but rejected it due to lack of evidence. The Court emphasized that the intention to cause death must not be readily inferred. The final decision was based on the finding that Tularam had the knowledge that his act could cause death, but not the intention to cause death.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• There was no evidence to suggest that Tularam had the intention to cause the death of Bhadri Lodhi.
• The incident occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation.
• Tularam did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner.
• Tularam had the knowledge that piercing the left side of the chest with a spear would result in a bodily injury that is likely to cause death.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The intention to cause death must not be readily inferred.”

“There is nothing on the record to suggest such an intention and none of the witnesses have given any indication of Tularam’s intention to cause the death of Bhadri Lodhi.”

“However, Tularam must be attributed with the knowledge that piercing the left side of the chest with a spear would result in a bodily injury that is likely to cause death.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Court’s interpretation of the facts and application of the law led to the conclusion that Tularam’s actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder. This interpretation has implications for future cases involving sudden fights and the assessment of intent versus knowledge.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it reinforced the existing legal principles related to culpable homicide and murder, particularly the importance of intent in determining the nature of the offense.

Key Takeaways

• In cases of sudden fights, the intention to cause death must not be readily inferred.
• For Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC to apply, the fight must be sudden, without premeditation, and the offender must not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
• The distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial in determining whether an offense is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The court will look at the facts of the case and see if all ingredients of exception 4 of Section 300 are fulfilled.

This judgment clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the intention to cause death and the knowledge that an act is likely to cause death. This distinction will be crucial in future cases involving sudden altercations.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Tularam under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted him under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court altered Tularam’s sentence to the period of incarceration he had already undergone, and ordered his immediate release.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in a sudden fight without premeditation, the absence of intention to cause death, coupled with the presence of knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, reduces the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case reinforces the importance of the distinction between intention and knowledge in determining the nature of the offense under the Indian Penal Code. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court clarified the interpretation in the present facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tularam vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh highlights the crucial distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. By focusing on the absence of intent to cause death and the presence of a sudden fight, the Court reduced Tularam’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide, emphasizing the importance of a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances in such cases.