Supreme Court reduces sentence in culpable homicide case arising from property dispute: Govindan vs. State (2021)

Date of the Judgment: December 17, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 735

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a sentence for culpable homicide be reduced when the act occurred during a sudden quarrel and in the exercise of the right to private defense? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case where a property dispute escalated into a fatal altercation. The Court considered the circumstances of the incident, the absence of premeditation, and the actions of the complainant’s family as aggressors to reduce the sentence.

The bench, comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, delivered a judgment modifying the sentence while upholding the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute between the appellant, Govindan, and the complainant’s family. The two parties owned adjacent lands in Kolimekkanur. A pathway existed from the appellant’s land to the complainant’s land. In 2010, Govindan filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 146 of 2010) in the Pappireddypatti District Munsif Court and obtained an injunction order regarding the pathway.

On June 13, 2010, a quarrel broke out when the appellant tried to erect a fence, allegedly to block the complainant’s family from using the pathway. The complainant’s family members reportedly assaulted female members of the appellant’s family, which led to the appellant attacking the deceased, Kamsala, with a knife. Kamsala died as a result of the injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Govindan under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The other accused were acquitted. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2015, stating that Govindan should have sought remedy through the Civil Court instead of resorting to violence. The Supreme Court, in response to Govindan’s appeal, limited its notice to the quantum of punishment.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision under consideration was Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This section applies when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or grievous hurt. The court also considered the concept of the right to private defense, which allows individuals to use necessary force to protect themselves or their property from harm.

The relevant part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“304. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, 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 as is likely to cause death.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The incident was a result of a civil dispute over a pathway.
• The complainant’s family members were the aggressors, having assaulted female members of the appellant’s family.
• The appellant acted in the heat of the moment, without premeditation, exercising his right to private defense.
• The Trial Court acknowledged that the complainant’s family members were the aggressors.
• The appellant relied on the judgments of Lakshmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 9 SCC 704] and Madhavan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2017) 15 SCC 582], where sentences were reduced in similar cases.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The appellant was rightly convicted under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court was appropriate.
• The respondent relied on the judgment of Ram Pyare Mishra v. Prem Shanker and Ors. [(2008) 14 SCC 614], where the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence for culpable homicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court limited the issue to the quantum of punishment for the offense under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Lakshmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 9 SCC 704] – Supreme Court of India: The Court reduced the sentence from eight years to two years, noting the lack of premeditation and the dispute arising from straying cattle.
• Madhavan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2017) 15 SCC 582] – Supreme Court of India: The Court reduced the sentence to five years, observing that the incident was a sudden free fight with injuries on both sides.
• Ram Pyare Mishra v. Prem Shanker and Ors. [(2008) 14 SCC 614] – Supreme Court of India: The Court convicted the accused under Section 304(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imposed a sentence of eight years.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or grievous hurt.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel, without any premeditation or pre-planning. The Court also considered that the complainant’s family members were the aggressors, having initiated the altercation and assaulted the female members of the appellant’s family. The Court noted that the Trial Court had recorded these findings, which had become final. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant had exercised his right to private defense, although he exceeded the limits of that right. Additionally, the Court relied on precedents where sentences were reduced in similar circumstances.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the specific facts of the case, the findings of the Trial Court, and the legal precedents cited. The Court emphasized that the incident was not premeditated and that the appellant was provoked by the actions of the complainant’s family. The Court also noted that the appellant had exceeded his right to private defense but that the circumstances warranted a reduction in sentence.

The Supreme Court stated, “The Trial Court itself has recorded a finding that the complainant’s family members are aggressors and there was no premeditation or pre-planning and it was a sudden quarrel, where the appellant exercised his right of private defence.”

Further, the Court observed, “Having regard to such findings recorded by the Trial Court itself, which have become final and further, in view of the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, which support the case of the appellant for modifying the sentence, we deem it appropriate that this is a fit case to modify the sentence, to meet the ends of justice.”

The Court also noted, “With regard to quantum of sentence, it all depends on background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused, whether the assault was premeditated and pre-planned or not, etc.”

Key Takeaways

• Sentences for culpable homicide can be reduced if the act occurred during a sudden quarrel without premeditation.
• The actions of the complainant’s family as aggressors can be a mitigating factor in sentencing.
• The right to private defense is recognized, but exceeding its limits can still lead to conviction.
• The Supreme Court may modify sentences imposed by lower courts to ensure justice.
• The Court will consider the background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused, and whether the assault was premeditated or pre-planned while deciding the quantum of sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default to undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the sentence can be reduced if the act was committed in a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, and where the accused has exercised the right of private defense, albeit exceeding the limits. This case reinforces the principle that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense, including the conduct of the parties involved, must be taken into account while determining the appropriate sentence. This judgment also reinforces the principle that the court will consider the background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused, and whether the assault was premeditated or pre-planned while deciding the quantum of sentence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Govindan v. State highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of a case when determining the appropriate sentence for culpable homicide. By reducing the sentence, the Court emphasized that the lack of premeditation, the sudden nature of the quarrel, and the actions of the complainant’s family as aggressors are significant factors that warrant a more lenient punishment. This judgment serves as a reminder that the right to private defense must be exercised within reasonable limits and that each case must be assessed on its own merits.