Supreme Court Reinstates Murder Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: State of U.P. vs. Jai Dutt (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 60
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court reduce a murder conviction to grievous hurt simply because the victim died a few days after the assault and no bone fracture was found? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the nature of injuries and their direct link to the cause of death. This case highlights the importance of medical evidence in determining the severity of an assault and its consequences. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On the evening of December 20, 1983, the deceased, Ram Autar, was working in his agricultural field when the accused, Jai Dutt, Lal Bahadur, Sher Singh, and Shastri, arrived. They began to abuse him and subsequently assaulted him with weapons. Ram Autar sustained multiple injuries and was taken to a hospital in Lucknow. He succumbed to his injuries six days later. The prosecution charged all accused except Jai Dutt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while Jai Dutt was charged under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court convicted Jai Dutt under Section 302 of the IPC and the other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Jai Dutt for murder under Section 302 of the IPC and the other accused, Lal Bahadur, Sher Singh, and Shastri, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. During the appeal, Lal Bahadur and Sher Singh passed away, and their appeals abated. The High Court partly allowed the appeal for Jai Dutt and Shastri, converting their convictions from Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC to Section 326 of the IPC. The High Court reasoned that the deceased died six days after the incident and no fracture was found on his head. The High Court imposed a sentence of two years, considering the incident occurred about 36 years prior.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code (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 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “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 326, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Appellant):

• The High Court erred in converting the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 326 of the IPC. The High Court itself acknowledged that the accused initiated the quarrel and used weapons to cause injuries.
• The High Court accepted the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, the eyewitnesses, as trustworthy.
• The High Court should not have converted the conviction simply because the deceased died six days after the incident. The cause of death was due to a head injury, which constitutes murder.
• The High Court did not consider the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report and the actual cause of death.
• The absence of a skull fracture does not negate the charge of murder, as death can result from internal injuries, as was the case here.

Arguments by the Accused (Respondents):

• The High Court was correct in converting the conviction to Section 326 of the IPC, as no fracture was found on the deceased’s head, and he died six days after the incident.
• The injuries were not severe. The initial medical examination at the PHC noted nine simple injuries.
• The incident occurred on the spur of the moment due to a minor dispute, and there was no intention to kill the deceased.

The State argued that the High Court’s reasoning was flawed, as the head injury was fatal, and the absence of a fracture did not diminish the severity of the assault. The accused contended that the lack of a skull fracture and the delay in death indicated a lack of intent to murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in converting the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 326 of the IPC, considering the facts and evidence on record, particularly the cause of death and the nature of injuries?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 326, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court applied this section to restore the conviction of the accused for murder, as the head injury was determined to be the cause of death.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court applied this section to restore the conviction of the accused who shared the common intention.
• Section 326, Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court distinguished this section from the present case, as the injuries were fatal and on a vital part of the body, thus not amounting to grievous hurt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report and the testimony of the doctor (PW8) clearly established that the cause of death was the head injury. The court emphasized that the High Court had overlooked this crucial evidence.
• Nature of Injury: The court noted that the head injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body, making it a fatal injury. The fact that there was no skull fracture did not diminish the severity of the internal injuries that led to death.
• Eyewitness Testimony: The court reiterated that the High Court had accepted the eyewitness accounts (PW1 and PW2) as trustworthy, which confirmed the assault by the accused.
• Circumstances of the Assault: The court highlighted that the accused went to the field of the complainant with weapons and assaulted the deceased, indicating a clear intention to cause harm.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the factual findings, particularly the medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, which clearly pointed to a case of murder.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the absence of a skull fracture and the delay in death justified a conversion to Section 326 IPC. The court emphasized that the head injury was the direct cause of death, making it a case of murder. The court also highlighted that the accused went to the field with weapons, indicating an intention to cause harm.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that when an injury on a vital part of the body results in death, it constitutes murder. The court reasoned that the High Court had overlooked the medical evidence and the circumstances of the assault.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “As per the doctor the deceased died due to head injury no.1. The aforesaid injuries more particularly head injury no.1 was fatal and because of said injuries the deceased died.”
• “Merely because the deceased died after six days could not have been the ground to set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to convert it to Section 326 IPC.”
• “Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the case would fall under Section 326 IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the cause of death, as determined by medical evidence, is crucial in determining the nature of the offense.
• Injuries on vital parts of the body, such as the head, are considered serious and can lead to a murder conviction, even if there is no skull fracture.
• A delay between the assault and the death of the victim does not diminish the severity of the assault if the cause of death is directly linked to the injuries sustained.
• The court’s decision underscores the importance of considering all evidence, including medical reports and eyewitness testimonies, in criminal cases.
• The judgment clarifies that when an assault is committed with weapons and results in death, it is likely to be considered a case of murder rather than just grievous hurt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused, Jai Dutt and Shastri, be taken into custody forthwith to undergo life imprisonment, as per the trial court’s original sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a person dies due to an injury inflicted on a vital part of the body, such as the head, it constitutes murder under Section 302 of the IPC, irrespective of whether there is a fracture or a delay in death. This judgment reinforces the principle that medical evidence, particularly the cause of death, is paramount in determining the nature of the offense. The Supreme Court’s decision also clarifies that the absence of a skull fracture does not negate the charge of murder if the internal injuries are fatal. This judgment reaffirms the importance of considering all evidence, including medical reports and eyewitness testimonies, in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, setting aside the High Court’s decision to convert the murder conviction to grievous hurt. The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s judgment, convicting Jai Dutt under Section 302 of the IPC and Shastri under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence, particularly the cause of death, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased. This case serves as a reminder that when an assault on a vital part of the body results in death, it is likely to be considered murder.