Supreme Court reduces sentence in culpable homicide case: Lakshmi Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) INSC 703

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 August 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 703

Judges: Navin Sinha, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a sudden fight over stray cattle lead to a charge of murder? The Supreme Court of India recently examined a case where a neighborhood dispute escalated into a fatal assault. The key question was whether the accused acted with the intent to kill or if the death was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation. The Court analyzed the evidence to determine the appropriate charges and sentences for the accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The incident occurred on the morning of April 15, 1980. The appellants’ bullocks strayed into the compound of the deceased, Prem Lal. Prem Lal drove the bullocks out with a lathi, leading to an altercation with Kashmira (since deceased). Kashmira, along with the appellants, returned armed with a lathi, an iron rod, and a knife, respectively. They assaulted Prem Lal. PW-1, Banarasi, the informant, and PW-2, Omveer, an injured witness, along with another injured witness, Rajendra Singh, intervened and retaliated in self-defense. The appellants then fled the scene.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, upon appeal, concluded that a common intention could not be inferred in the facts of the case. The appellants were held liable for their individual acts. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was set aside. The High Court held that the assault on the deceased had taken place on the spur of the moment, preceded by an altercation, without any premeditation. The conviction of appellant no. 2 was altered to one under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The rest of the conviction was sustained relying on the injury reports of PW-2 and Rajendra Singh.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 307: Attempt to murder.
• Section 304 Part II: 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.
• Section 302: Punishment for murder.
• Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they had acted in self-defense, and were not the aggressors. They contended that the High Court had already concluded the absence of any common intention, leaving each appellant answerable for his own acts.
• Since the injuries caused to PW-2 and Rajendra Singh were found to be simple in nature, their conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not sustainable.
• They argued that there was no intention to cause death, and that the cutting of the femoral artery was a fortuitous event and that neither intention nor knowledge could be imputed from the nature of the assault. Had the intention been to cause death, the appellants would not have run away without accomplishing their task, and the assault would have been made with more severity on vital parts of the body.
• The appellants contended that the conviction of appellant no. 2 under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not sustainable, and the offence deserved to be reduced, or alternatively, the sentence was excessive, considering the facts of the case arising out of a dispute between neighbours over stray cattle.
• They relied on the cases of Darshan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (16) SCC 290 and Maqsood and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 (15) SCC 748.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the conviction of the appellants called for no interference.
• Knowledge under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, that death was likely to be caused, could easily be attributed to appellant no. 2 from the nature of the assault made with severity, leading to the femoral artery being cut, which was the cause of death.
• The injured had suffered an assault on the head, also a sensitive part of the human body, and therefore, the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 also called for no interference.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the following issues were considered by the court:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2. Whether the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable.
3. Whether the sentence of appellant no. 2 under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was excessive.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following cases and legal provisions were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Darshan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (16) SCC 290: The court relied on this case to support its conclusion that in the absence of a common intention, each accused is responsible for their individual acts.
• Maqsood and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 (15) SCC 748: The court relied on this case to reduce the sentence of appellant no. 2, considering the circumstances of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the lack of premeditation and the absence of a common intention to cause death. The court emphasized that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment, stemming from a dispute over stray cattle. The nature of the assault, not being on a vital part of the body, and the fact that the assailants ran away after the incident, also weighed in the court’s decision to reduce the sentence. The court also took into account that the incident occurred long ago in 1980.

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of a premeditated attack, but rejected them based on the evidence, which indicated a sudden fight without prior planning. The court emphasized that the assault was not on a vital part of the body and the assailants ran away, indicating a lack of intent to cause death.

The decision was reached by considering the specific facts of the case, the nature of the injuries, and the circumstances of the incident. The court concluded that while the act of the accused led to the death of the deceased, it was not done with the intention to kill, but rather with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.

“The occurrence undoubtedly had taken place at the spur of the moment without premeditation.”

“It cannot be said that the appellants had any common intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely to ensue.”

“The absence of any common intention makes him individually answerable.”

The court’s reasoning was based on the absence of premeditation, the lack of common intention to kill, and the nature of the assault. The court also considered the fact that the incident occurred long ago and that the dispute was over stray cattle.

Key Takeaways

• In cases of sudden fights, the absence of premeditation and common intention can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead of murder.
• The nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident play a crucial role in determining the appropriate charges and sentences.
• The court may consider the time elapsed since the incident and the nature of the dispute when deciding on the sentence.
• If injuries are simple, the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is unsustainable.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case, other than the reduction of the sentence of appellant no. 2.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in the absence of a common intention to kill and premeditation, an accused cannot be held liable for murder but may be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also reiterated that in the absence of a common intention, each accused is liable for his own individual acts. This judgment reinforces the established principles of criminal law and provides clarity on the application of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in cases of sudden fights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and setting aside the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court reduced the sentence of appellant no. 2 under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from eight years to two years, emphasizing the lack of premeditation and common intention to cause death. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case when determining criminal liability.