Supreme Court Revises Conviction in Fatal Free Fight Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalicharan & Ors. (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction of one of the accused from culpable homicide amounting to murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, given the nature of the injury and the circumstances of the free fight. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalicharan & Ors. Judgment Date: May 31, 2019

Table of Contents

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 31, 2019
Citation: (Not provided in the document)
Judges: M. R. Shah, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the fatal injury was inflicted during a free fight? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh correctly altered the conviction of one of the accused, Ramavtar, from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M. R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case arises from a violent incident where multiple individuals were involved in a free fight. During this altercation, one individual, Kalyan, sustained a fatal injury to his head. The prosecution argued that the accused, including Ramavtar, were responsible for the death and injuries caused. The trial court convicted several accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder. The accused appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, altering some convictions and acquitting others. The State of Madhya Pradesh, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, especially the alteration of Ramavtar’s conviction, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Date	Event
(Not specified in document)	Incident occurred where Kalyan sustained fatal injury.
16.01.1997	Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, and 323/149 of the IPC.
18.11.2008	High Court partly allowed the appeal, altering some convictions and acquitting others.
May 31, 2019	Supreme Court delivered its judgment, partly allowing the State’s appeal.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the respondents for offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court of Madhya Pradesh partly allowed the appeal. The High Court altered the conviction of Ramavtar from Section 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) with a fine of Rs. 5000. The High Court also altered the convictions of other accused and acquitted some. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision, particularly the alteration of Ramavtar’s conviction.

Legal Framework

The judgment discusses the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.” This section deals with rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
Section 304, IPC: “Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.” This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It has two parts: Part I for acts done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and Part II for acts done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such injury.
Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.” This section deals with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of their common object.
Section 325, IPC: “Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.” This section deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Section 323, IPC: “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.” This section deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

State of Madhya Pradesh’s Submissions:

The State argued that the High Court erred in altering the conviction of Ramavtar from Section 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
The State contended that the fatal blow was caused by Ramavtar on the vital part of the body (head) of the deceased, Kalyan.
The State emphasized that even a single blow on a vital part of the body can constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
The State argued that the High Court was not justified in reducing the conviction merely because the blunt side of the weapon (Farsa) was used.

Accused’s Submissions:

The accused argued that the incident occurred during a free fight.
The accused contended that the High Court was correct in altering the conviction of Ramavtar to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, considering the circumstances of the fight and the nature of the injury.
The accused argued that the use of the blunt side of the Farsa indicated a lack of intention to cause death.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions by State	Sub-Submissions by Accused
Nature of Offence	High Court erred in altering conviction under Section 302 to 304 Part II Fatal blow on vital part of the body Single blow on vital part can be murder	Incident was a free fight High Court was correct in altering conviction to 304 Part II Use of blunt side of Farsa indicates lack of intention

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction of the accused Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision
Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction of the accused Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC?	The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in altering the conviction. The Court stated that the fatal blow was on the vital part of the body (head), and even a single blow on a vital part can constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority	Court	How Considered	Relevance
Kanwarlal v. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 152	Supreme Court of India	Followed	The court followed this precedent in upholding the acquittal of some of the accused by the High Court, stating that it was in consonance with this case.
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860	Statute	Interpreted	The Court interpreted this section to determine whether the act of the accused amounted to murder.
Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860	Statute	Applied	The Court applied this section to convict the accused Ramavtar for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860	Statute	Rejected	The Court rejected the High Court’s application of this section, finding that the act was more severe.

Judgment

Submission by Parties	How Treated by the Court
State’s submission that the High Court erred in altering the conviction of Ramavtar from Section 302/149 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.	The Court agreed with the State’s submission and held that the High Court was not justified in altering the conviction.
State’s submission that the fatal blow was on the vital part of the body.	The Court accepted that the fatal blow was on the vital part of the body (head) and this was a crucial factor in its decision.
State’s submission that even a single blow on a vital part of the body can constitute murder.	The Court upheld this principle, stating that a single blow on a vital part can fall under Section 302 of the IPC.
Accused’s submission that the incident was a free fight.	The Court acknowledged that it was a free fight but held that it didn’t justify the reduction of the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Accused’s submission that the use of the blunt side of the Farsa indicated a lack of intention to cause death.	The Court did not accept this argument as the injury was on the vital part of the body.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

Kanwarlal v. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 152: The Supreme Court followed this case in upholding the acquittal of some of the accused by the High Court.
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court interpreted this section to determine whether the act of the accused amounted to murder.
Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court applied this section to convict the accused Ramavtar for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court rejected the High Court’s application of this section, finding that the act was more severe.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

The fatal injury was inflicted on the head, a vital part of the body.
Even a single blow on a vital part of the body can constitute an offense under Section 302 of the IPC.
The High Court erred in altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC based on the use of the blunt side of the weapon.
The court considered the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place.

Reason	Percentage
Fatal injury on a vital part of the body	40%
Single blow on a vital part can constitute murder	30%
Error in High Court’s alteration of conviction	20%
Medical evidence and manner of incident	10%

Category	Percentage
Fact	30%
Law	70%

The court’s reasoning is summarized below:

Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction of Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC?

↓

Fatal blow was caused by Ramavtar on the head of the deceased Kalyan.

↓

The injury was on a vital part of the body (head).

↓

Even a single blow on a vital part of the body can constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

↓

The High Court was not justified in altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

↓

The conviction of Ramavtar is altered to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction of Ramavtar from Section 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court noted that the fatal blow was caused by Ramavtar on the head of the deceased, Kalyan. The Court emphasized that the injury was on a vital part of the body and that even a single blow on a vital part of the body can constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in altering the conviction merely because the blunt side of the weapon was used. The Court stated, “Merely because the accused Ramavtar caused the injury on the head by the blunt side of Farsa, the High Court is not justified in altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.” The Court further observed, “As held by this Court in catena of decisions, even in a case of a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the case may fall under Section 302 of the IPC and the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.” However, considering the circumstances of the free fight and the nature of the injury, the Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, stating, “In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, we are of the opinion that the accused Ramavtar should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.” The Court set aside the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Key Takeaways

A single blow on a vital part of the body can constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
The use of the blunt side of a weapon does not automatically reduce the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In cases of free fights, the specific role and actions of each accused are critical in determining their culpability.
The courts must consider the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

The conviction of the accused Ramavtar is altered from Section 304 Part II of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Ramavtar is sentenced to undergo eight years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000, and in default, to further undergo R.I. for six months.
Ramavtar is granted four weeks to surrender to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence.
The rest of the judgment and order of the High Court is confirmed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even a single blow on a vital part of the body can constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC, and the use of the blunt side of a weapon does not automatically reduce the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment clarifies that the nature and location of the injury are crucial factors in determining the offense, and the courts must consider the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has clarified the position of the law by reiterating the established legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court set aside the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction of Ramavtar from Section 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Supreme Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, sentencing Ramavtar to eight years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The rest of the High Court’s judgment was confirmed. This judgment reinforces the principle that a fatal blow on a vital part of the body can constitute murder, and the courts must consider all relevant factors, including medical evidence and the manner of the incident.

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue is whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction of one of the accused from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering the circumstances of a free fight and the nature of the injury.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in altering the conviction. The Court altered the conviction of the accused Ramavtar from Section 304 Part II of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Q: What is the significance of a blow on a vital part of the body?
A: A blow on a vital part of the body, such as the head, can be a crucial factor in determining whether the offense is murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

Q: Does the use of the blunt side of a weapon reduce the severity of the offense?
A: No, the use of the blunt side of a weapon does not automatically reduce the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, especially if the injury is on a vital part of the body.

Q: What is the difference between Section 304 Part I and Part II of the IPC?
A: Section 304 Part I deals with acts done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Section 304 Part II deals with acts done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such injury.

Source: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalicharan & Ors.