Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Culpable Homicide Case: Nazir Malita vs. State of West Bengal (30 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 30 April 2019
Citation: NAZIR MALITA & ORS. vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL, Criminal Appeal No(s). 807 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No(s).8526 of 2018)
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a conviction for culpable homicide be modified if there was no premeditation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a fatal altercation over a land dispute. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically distinguishing between Part I and Part II of the section, based on the presence or absence of premeditation. The bench comprised of Justices R. Banumathi and S. Abdul Nazeer, with the judgment authored by Justice Banumathi.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on 12th August 2010. There was an initial dispute in the morning between the deceased, Morshed Malita, and one Hannan Mondal (later acquitted) regarding encroachment on a path. This dispute escalated later in the day, around 4:00-5:00 PM, when Morshed Malita again confronted Hannan Mondal. Hearing the commotion, Innach Malita (PW-1), Asraf Malita (PW-4), and Rajabul Malita (PW-5) rushed to the scene to help their father, Morshed Malita. The accused party also arrived at the scene, and a fight broke out. During the fight, Nazir Malita (A-6), Hira Malita (A-7), and Rashid Malita (A-8) attacked Morshed Malita with sharp weapons (fala and ramda), causing severe injuries. Other accused individuals allegedly used lathis and rods. Morshed Malita was taken to the hospital on the same day, but he succumbed to his injuries the next day, 13th August 2010. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 341, 325, and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After Morshed Malita’s death, the charges were altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with murder.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellants and other accused under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. They were also convicted for offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court at Calcutta upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323, 341, and 304 read with 34 IPC but modified the sentence for the appellants from life imprisonment to fourteen years each, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000. The High Court acquitted the other co-accused (A-1 to A-5 and A-9). The Supreme Court, after issuing notice limited to the quantum of sentence, heard the appeal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is divided into two parts:
  • Part I: Deals with acts done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Part II: Deals with acts done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for wrongful restraint.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the incident was a result of a sudden fight without any premeditation.
• They contended that the High Court erred in upholding their conviction under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without specifying whether it was under Part I or Part II of Section 304.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of West Bengal):

• The State argued that the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the evidence on record.
• The State relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, to submit that no leniency should be shown to the appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. What should be the appropriate sentence for the appellants considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the absence of premeditation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authority was considered by the Court:

• State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441 – Supreme Court of India
  • The respondent-State relied on this case to argue that no leniency should be shown to the appellants. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the facts of the present case from this authority to reduce the sentence.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441. While the respondent-State relied on this case to argue against leniency, the Court found that the facts of the present case did not warrant the same outcome. The Court noted that there was no premeditation in the present case, which was a key factor in reducing the sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the absence of premeditation. The Court noted that the fight was a continuation of an earlier altercation and that the appellants did not plan to cause the death of Morshed Malita. This lack of premeditation led the Court to modify the conviction from Section 304 simpliciter to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court also considered the nature of the injuries inflicted and the circumstances of the fight. The court observed that the appellants attacked the deceased with fala and ramda, which are sharp-edged weapons attached to long sticks, and that the deceased suffered cut injuries on the chest, a bruise on the left forearm, and a sharp cut penetrating the back of the chest, puncturing the lungs. However, the absence of premeditation led the Court to reduce the sentence.

The Court considered the circumstances of the case and the fact that there was no premeditation or pre-plan to commit the murder of the deceased-Morshed Malita. The Court noted, “there was no premeditation and, therefore, they were rightly convicted under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC.” However, the Trial Court and the High Court did not point out under which “Part” of the Section 304 IPC the conviction of the appellants are to be maintained. The Court observed that the appellants attacked the deceased with fala and ramda, and the deceased suffered cut injuries on the chest, a bruise on the left forearm, and a sharp cut penetrating the back of the chest, puncturing the lungs. Despite these injuries, the Court found that the absence of premeditation warranted a modification of the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC. The Court stated, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that there was no premeditation, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC is modified to Section 304 Part II IPC.” The Court also stated that, “The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants under Sections 341, 323, 304 r/w 34 IPC shall run concurrently.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ In cases of culpable homicide, the presence or absence of premeditation is a crucial factor in determining the appropriate section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be applied.
• ✓ Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has two parts: Part I applies when there is an intention to cause death, and Part II applies when there is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death but without the intention to cause death.
• ✓ If there is no premeditation to cause death, a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) may be more appropriate than a conviction under Section 304 simpliciter.
• ✓ The Supreme Court can modify sentences imposed by lower courts based on the specific facts and circumstances of a case, particularly when there is an absence of premeditation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants under Sections 341, 323, and 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) shall run concurrently. The fine and default clause imposed by the High Court remained intact.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of culpable homicide, the absence of premeditation is a key factor in determining whether the conviction should be under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment clarifies that in the absence of premeditation, a conviction under Section 304 Part II is appropriate, and the sentence can be reduced accordingly. This case also highlights that the Supreme Court can modify sentences imposed by lower courts based on the specific facts and circumstances of a case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction of the appellants from Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The sentence of imprisonment was reduced from fourteen years to ten years, reflecting the absence of premeditation in the commission of the crime. The Court emphasized that the lack of premeditation was a crucial factor in modifying the conviction and reducing the sentence. The fine and default clause imposed by the High Court remained intact.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Culpable Homicide
Child Category: Sentencing
Parent Category: Supreme Court Judgments
Child Category: Criminal Appeals
Child Category: Sentence Modification

FAQ

Q: What is culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
A: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is an act that causes death but does not have the specific intention or planning required for murder. It is covered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Q: What is the difference between Part I and Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
A: Part I of Section 304 applies when the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Part II applies when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury.

Q: What does it mean when a court modifies a conviction?
A: Modifying a conviction means that the court changes the section of law under which someone is found guilty. In this case, the conviction was modified from Section 304 simpliciter to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Q: What is the significance of premeditation in a case of culpable homicide?
A: Premeditation, or the lack thereof, is crucial in determining whether an act of culpable homicide falls under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). If there is no premeditation, the conviction is more likely to be under Part II, which carries a lesser sentence.

Q: Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence given by a High Court?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has the power to modify or reduce sentences imposed by High Courts, especially if it finds that the lower court did not consider all the relevant facts and circumstances, such as the absence of premeditation.