Supreme Court Revises Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: State of Rajasthan vs. Mehram & Ors. (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 6, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 380
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a claim of private defense justify a reduction in a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning a fatal assault. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan was correct in altering a trial court’s conviction of murder to a lesser offense of causing grievous hurt, based on the premise of exceeding the right to private defense. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on August 14, 1981, in village Gowa Khurd, Rajasthan. Mangilal, the complainant, reported that he and his family had been using an old, unrecorded path through the fields of Heera, Chhagna, and Jeevan to access their own field. After Heera and Chhagna blocked this path, disputes arose. On the day of the incident, a quarrel occurred between Ramnarayan (from the accused party) and Ghewar (from the complainant party) regarding grazing goats. Later, as Mangilal was returning from his field, he was ambushed by Mehram, Baksharam, Ramnarayan, Heeraram, and Ramniwas. Baksharam initially attacked Mangilal, and then Mehram struck Bhura Ram (the deceased) on the head with a ‘kassi’ (a type of axe), resulting in his death. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court modified the convictions.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, after examining fourteen prosecution witnesses, convicted Mehram under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, along with other offenses. The other accused were convicted for various offenses, including rioting and causing hurt. On appeal, the High Court partly allowed the appeals of Ram Niwas, Heera Ram, Ram Narayan, and Laxa Ram, setting aside their convictions under Section 149 of the IPC, but maintaining convictions under Sections 323, 324, 147, and 148 of the IPC. For Mehram, the High Court converted his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC to Section 326 of the IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), citing that he had exceeded his right of private defense, and reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, along with a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the deceased’s family.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 326, IPC: Addresses voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 304, IPC: Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 147, IPC: Defines the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Defines the punishment for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: Defines the concept of common object in an unlawful assembly.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Rajasthan):

• The State argued that the High Court erred in reducing the conviction of Mehram from murder (Section 302, IPC) to voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 326, IPC).
• The State contended that the accused party were the aggressors and had ambushed the complainant party with lethal weapons.
• The State sought the restoration of the trial court’s conviction of Mehram under Section 302, IPC, and a life imprisonment sentence.

Respondent (Mehram):

• Mehram argued that he was entitled to acquittal as the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges against him.
• Alternatively, he submitted that the incident occurred due to provocation and in the exercise of his right to private defense.
• He claimed that he did not intend to cause the death of Bhura Ram and that he was a senior citizen suffering from old-age ailments.
• He relied on previous judgments to support his claim of exceeding the right of private defense.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was that even though he did not file an appeal, he relied on Section 377(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to challenge the conviction under Section 326 and 148 of IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in converting the conviction under Section 302, IPC to one under Section 326, IPC.
2. Whether the accused Mehram had exceeded his right of private defense.
3. Whether the accused party were the aggressors.
4. Whether the case falls under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

On the Right of an Accused to Challenge Conviction in State Appeal:

• Chandrakant Patil vs. State through CBI [ (1998) 3 SCC 38 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case established that an accused can challenge their conviction in an appeal filed by the State against the inadequacy of sentence.
• Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh & Ors. [ (2014) 7 SCC 323 ] – Supreme Court of India: Reaffirmed the principle that an accused can argue for acquittal or reduction of sentence in a State appeal for enhancement.
• State of Rajasthan vs. Ramanand [ (2017) 5 SCC 695 ] – Supreme Court of India: Further reinforced that an accused can challenge their conviction in a State appeal.

On the Right of Private Defence:

• Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Ors. vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [ (1970) 1 SCC 235 ] – Supreme Court of India: Discussed the principles of the right to private defense.
• Deo Narain vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [ (1973) 1 SCC 347 ] – Supreme Court of India: Addressed the limits of private defense.
• Subramani & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ (2002) 7 SCC 210 ] – Supreme Court of India: Examined the application of the right of private defense in specific circumstances.
• State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Gajey Singh & Anr. [ (2009) 11 SCC 414 ] – Supreme Court of India: Further clarified the scope of private defense.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 377(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allows an accused to plead for acquittal or reduction of sentence in an appeal against sentence.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The cases of Chandrakant Patil vs. State through CBI [(1998) 3 SCC 38], Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh & Ors. [(2014) 7 SCC 323], and State of Rajasthan vs. Ramanand [(2017) 5 SCC 695] were followed to establish that the accused could challenge the conviction in the State’s appeal.
• The cases of Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Ors. vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [(1970) 1 SCC 235], Deo Narain vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [(1973) 1 SCC 347], Subramani & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2002) 7 SCC 210], and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Gajey Singh & Anr. [(2009) 11 SCC 414] were considered to understand the principles of private defense, but were not applicable as the accused was the aggressor.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was flawed. The Court found that the accused party was the aggressor, and therefore, the question of private defense did not arise. The Court noted that the injuries sustained by the accused were superficial and did not impact the prosecution’s case. The Court also held that the fatal blow inflicted by Mehram was with the intention to cause death. However, the court noted that the accused was deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. Therefore, the Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The trial court’s finding that the accused party was the aggressor, which was supported by evidence and circumstances.
• The fact that the accused party was hiding and waiting for the complainant party, armed with lethal weapons.
• The nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, which indicated an intention to cause death.
• The fact that the accused was deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (65%), such as the accused being the aggressor and the nature of the injuries, than by legal considerations (35%), such as the application of specific sections of the IPC. The court emphasized the factual findings of the trial court and the circumstances of the incident.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretations, such as the High Court’s view that the accused had exceeded their right to private defense, but rejected it based on the evidence that the accused were the aggressors. The court also considered whether the case fell under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, but concluded that the act was done with the intention to cause death, thus falling under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

The Court concluded that the High Court erred in converting the conviction. The Court found that the accused was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, and not merely causing grievous hurt under Section 326 of the IPC. The court also noted that the accused was deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation due to repeated unauthorized entry on the fields belonging to the accused party. The court sentenced the accused to ten years of simple imprisonment, along with a fine and compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, with Justice Dinesh Maheshwari concurring.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that a claim of private defense cannot be invoked when the accused party is the aggressor.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the factual matrix of a case, including the sequence of events and the nature of injuries, to determine culpability.
• The case highlights the distinction between murder (Section 302, IPC), culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304, IPC), and voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 326, IPC).
• The court’s decision underscores the principle that even in cases where there is provocation, the intention to cause death can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
• The judgment serves as a reminder that the right to private defense is not absolute and cannot be used as a shield by an aggressor.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The conviction of Mehram under Section 302, IPC was modified to Section 304 Part I, IPC.
• Mehram was sentenced to ten years of simple imprisonment for the offense under Section 304 Part I, IPC, and six months of simple imprisonment for the offense under Section 148, IPC.
• A fine of Rs. 100 was imposed on each count, with an additional 15 days of simple imprisonment in default.
• The sentences were to run concurrently.
• The period already undergone by Mehram was to be adjusted under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Mehram was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the next of kin of the deceased, if not already paid.
• Mehram was directed to surrender within six weeks after the lockdown is relaxed to undergo the remaining sentence.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right of private defense cannot be invoked by an aggressor. The Supreme Court clarified that when the accused party initiates the assault, the plea of private defense is not available. The court also distinguished between the offenses of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and causing grievous hurt, emphasizing that the intention and circumstances of the act must be considered.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Mehram & Ors. modified the High Court’s decision, clarifying that the right of private defense cannot be claimed by an aggressor. The court convicted Mehram under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing that while there was provocation, the act was done with the intention to cause death. The judgment underscores the importance of factual evidence and the sequence of events in determining culpability in criminal cases.