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

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 37

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court convert a murder conviction to grievous hurt simply because the victim died a few days after the assault and no skull fracture was found? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, focusing on whether the High Court erred in altering a trial court’s verdict. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating the murder convictions. 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

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on December 20, 1983, when the deceased, Ram Autar, was working in his agricultural field. The accused, Jai Dutt, Lal Bahadur, Sher Singh, and Shastri, arrived and began abusing him. They proceeded to beat him with various weapons, causing multiple injuries. Ram Autar was initially taken to a local hospital and then transferred to Lucknow for further treatment. He succumbed to his injuries six days later, on December 26, 1983.

The prosecution argued that the accused had intentionally caused fatal injuries, leading to Ram Autar’s death. The trial court convicted Jai Dutt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (murder) and the other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (murder with common intention). However, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a subsequent appeal, altered the conviction to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), citing the lack of a skull fracture and the six-day gap between the assault and death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Jai Dutt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the other accused, Lal Bahadur, Sher Singh, and Shastri, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were all sentenced to life imprisonment. The accused appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

During the appeal, Lal Bahadur and Sher Singh passed away, causing the appeal against them to abate. The High Court, in its judgment dated 18 September 2019, partly allowed the appeal for the remaining accused, Jai Dutt and Shastri. It converted their convictions from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and reduced their sentence to two years, citing the time elapsed since the incident and the absence of a skull fracture. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a 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 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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.”

These provisions are part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is the main criminal code of India. The code defines various offenses and their corresponding punishments.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Uttar Pradesh) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in converting the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court itself acknowledged that the accused initiated the quarrel, used weapons, and caused injuries.
• The eye-witnesses (PW1 and PW2) were deemed trustworthy by the High Court, and their statements should have been the basis for upholding the murder conviction.
• The fact that the deceased died six days after the incident should not be a ground to alter the conviction, as the cause of death was the head injury sustained during the assault.
• The High Court failed to consider the injuries detailed in the post-mortem report and the cause of death. The absence of a skull fracture does not negate the fact that the deceased died from internal injuries resulting from the assault.
• The reasoning of the High Court was perverse.

Respondent (Accused) Arguments:

• The High Court was correct in converting the conviction to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as there was no skull fracture and the deceased died six days after the incident. The injuries were not serious enough to warrant a murder conviction.
• The injuries were simple in nature as observed by Dr. B.L. Katiyar at the Primary Health Center (PHC).
• The incident occurred on the spur of the moment due to a minor dispute, and there was no intention to kill the deceased.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in converting the conviction of the accused from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court analyzed Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that the accused committed murder by causing a fatal head injury.
• The Court explained Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stating that all accused persons who participated in the assault were liable for the act.
• The Court clarified that Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not applicable as the injuries caused were fatal and resulted in death.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report, clearly indicated that the deceased died due to a head injury.
• The High Court’s error in not considering the post-mortem report and the cause of death.
• The fact that the injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body (the head), which ultimately proved fatal.
• The High Court’s flawed reasoning that the absence of a skull fracture and the six-day gap between the incident and death reduced the offense to grievous hurt.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the medical evidence and the nature of the injuries (60%), than by legal considerations (40%).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the absence of a skull fracture and the delay in death reduced the severity of the offense. The Supreme Court emphasized that the head injury, as evidenced by the post-mortem report, was the primary cause of death and that the accused had inflicted the injury on a vital part of the body.

The Supreme Court stated, “As per the deposition of Dr. P.R. Mishra – PW8 who conducted the post mortem, on opening of the brain menages, found brain congested, subdural hematoma over both temporal lobes. As per the doctor the deceased died due to head injury no.1.”

The Court further noted, “Merely because no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 IPC when the deceased died due to head injury no.1.”

The Court also observed, “Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the case would fall under Section 326 IPC.”

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s decision to convert the conviction was not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the law.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, should not be altered to grievous hurt under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, merely because there was no skull fracture or a delay between the assault and death, if the medical evidence clearly indicates that the death was a result of the injuries sustained.
• Medical evidence, particularly post-mortem reports, is crucial in determining the cause of death and the nature of injuries. Courts must give due consideration to such evidence.
• The location of the injury on a vital part of the body (like the head) can be a significant factor in determining the intent and nature of the offense.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that the courts should not be swayed by extraneous factors such as the time elapsed between the incident and death or the absence of specific types of injuries (like fractures) if the medical evidence and other circumstances clearly point to a more serious offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused, Jai Dutt and Shastri, be taken into custody immediately to serve their life imprisonment sentences as imposed by the trial court.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the established legal position that a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is appropriate when the death is caused by injuries inflicted on a vital part of the body, even if there is no skull fracture or a delay between the incident and the death. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court cannot convert a murder conviction to grievous hurt merely based on the absence of a skull fracture and a delay between the incident and the death, if the medical evidence clearly indicates that the death was a result of the injuries sustained. This judgment clarifies that medical evidence, especially the post-mortem report, should be given due weight and consideration while determining the nature of the offense.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s conviction of the accused, Jai Dutt and Shastri, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (murder) and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (murder with common intention), respectively. The accused were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in converting the conviction based on insufficient grounds, highlighting the importance of medical evidence and the nature of the injuries in determining the appropriate charge.