Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Culpable Homicide Case: Panneer Selvam vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 270

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

What is the appropriate sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, especially when the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Panneer Selvam vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The court considered whether the High Court was correct in upholding a seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for the offense under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), where the accused was not found to have acted with premeditation or cruelty. The bench comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the judgment authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on April 14, 2015, during the Mariamman Kovil festival in Vellanaipatti village. The appellant, Panneer Selvam, and the deceased, Mahalingam, were relatives who often quarreled because the deceased would pester the appellant for liquor. This frequent demand had led to the appellant developing animosity towards the deceased.

On the day of the incident, at around 5:00 PM, the appellant deceitfully invited the deceased for drinks, also taking along Sarathkumar Samy (PW-2). They went to a remote location on Nilambur Road, where a quarrel ensued between the appellant and the deceased at approximately 5:15 PM. The appellant then assaulted the deceased by repeatedly hitting him on the face, causing him to fall. The appellant continued to thrash the deceased, pressing him to the ground with his legs. Sarathkumar Samy tried to intervene but was threatened by the appellant.

Seeing the unconscious Mahalingam, Sarathkumar Samy sought help from a passerby, Ponnusamy (PW-3), who provided a phone to call the deceased’s brother, Arulkumar (PW-1). Arulkumar arrived and took Mahalingam to the Government Hospital in Coimbatore, where he succumbed to his injuries the next day. Arulkumar then filed a complaint with the Kovilpalayam Police Station against the appellant.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Coimbatore, acquitted the appellant for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (murder). However, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 304(ii) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 506(i) of IPC (criminal intimidation). The court sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offense under Section 304(ii) of IPC, and a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offense under Section 506(i) of IPC.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the Sessions Court’s judgment and order. The High Court agreed with the Trial Court’s finding that the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 304, IPC: This section deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Specifically, Section 304(ii) states, “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 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.”
• Section 506(i), IPC: This section defines the punishment for criminal intimidation. It states, “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The learned senior advocate Mr. S. Nagamuthu argued that the fight between the appellant and the deceased was spontaneous and there was no premeditation to commit murder.
• He submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
• He contended that the Trial Court and High Court had rightly acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• He argued that the appellant had already served more than four years of his sentence, and therefore, the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The learned advocate Dr. Joseph Aristotle for the respondent-State argued that the Sessions Court and High Court had already shown leniency by convicting the appellant under Section 304(ii) of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.
• He submitted that the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment should not be further reduced.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be reduced, considering the circumstances of the case and the findings of the lower courts.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The court’s decision was primarily based on the facts of the case, the findings of the lower courts, and the arguments presented by the counsels.

The legal provisions considered by the court were:

• Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered the provision for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, specifically focusing on the absence of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, but with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the absence of premeditation and cruelty in the appellant’s actions. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant was the only son of his aged parents. The key considerations included:

• Lack of Premeditation: The Court noted that the fight occurred spontaneously, without any prior planning to murder the deceased.
• Absence of Undue Advantage or Cruelty: The Court observed that the appellant did not take undue advantage of the situation or act in a cruel or unusual manner.
• Family Circumstances: The fact that the appellant was the only son of his aged parents was also a factor in the Court’s decision to reduce the sentence.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Ratio Analysis (Fact:Law):

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and the findings of the lower courts, decided to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellant. The court noted that the Sessions Court had convicted the appellant under Section 304(ii) of IPC, finding that there was no premeditation and that the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

The Court stated, “Having regard to the said findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused is reduced to the extent of 05 years in place of 07 years.”

The Court also observed that the fight had occurred because the deceased used to pester the appellant for liquor, which had annoyed the appellant. The court took into consideration the fact that the appellant was the only son of his aged parents.

The Supreme Court concluded, “In that view of the matter, the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years for the offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC. Rest of the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court shall remain unchanged.”

Key Takeaways

• Sentencing in Culpable Homicide: The Supreme Court’s decision highlights that in cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the absence of premeditation and cruelty are significant factors in determining the quantum of sentence.
• Consideration of Family Circumstances: The court also took into account the family circumstances of the accused, indicating that such factors can play a role in sentencing decisions.
• Reduction of Sentence: The judgment demonstrates that appellate courts can reduce sentences imposed by lower courts if they find that the original sentence is excessive, especially when there are mitigating factors.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years for the offense under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The rest of the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court was to remain unchanged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

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 absence of premeditation, undue advantage, or cruel behavior, along with the personal circumstances of the accused, can be considered as mitigating factors to reduce the sentence. This judgment reinforces the principle that sentencing should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the specific circumstances of each case. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes that the courts should consider all relevant factors, including the circumstances of the crime and the personal circumstances of the accused, when determining the appropriate sentence.

Conclusion

In the case of Panneer Selvam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the appellant from seven years to five years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s decision was based on the absence of premeditation and cruelty in the appellant’s actions, as well as the fact that he was the only son of his aged parents. This judgment underscores the importance of considering all mitigating factors when determining the appropriate sentence in culpable homicide cases.