Supreme Court Revises Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Single Blow Case: Stalin vs. State (2020) INSC 395 (9 September 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 9 September 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 395
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M. R. Shah, J.
Can a single stab wound during a sudden fight lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, examining whether the accused in a case should be convicted for murder or culpable homicide. This case revolves around an incident at a beer party where a sudden quarrel escalated, resulting in a fatal injury. The bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M. R. Shah, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident where the appellant, Stalin, was involved in a fatal altercation at a beer party. The prosecution’s case was that the deceased, Kalidas, was serving beer when Stalin became angry, questioning why Kalidas was serving more beer to outsiders than locals. This led to a scuffle during which Stalin stabbed Kalidas from behind with a knife. The incident resulted in a single stab wound on Kalidas’s back, which proved fatal. The trial court convicted Stalin for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a decision upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant, Stalin, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, limited its consideration to whether the conviction should be under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) or the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. This was based on the argument that the case involved a single blow.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines murder. It specifies that culpable homicide is murder if the act is done with the intention of causing death, or if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if the act is done with the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Prescribes the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is divided into 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 bodily injury.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): States that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that since the case involved a single blow, Section 302 of the IPC should not apply.
• It was contended that the alleged motive for the incident was four months prior, and therefore, the prosecution failed to establish a direct motive for the accused to kill the deceased.
• The defense argued that the incident occurred due to sudden and grave provocation, thus falling under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction should be for a lesser offense than murder.
• Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307 and Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 SCC 557, arguing that a single stab injury does not attract Section 302 of the IPC.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the accused caused the injury with a knife on a vital part of the body (liver).
• It was contended that there was no grave and sudden provocation established.
• The State argued that there is no absolute rule that a single blow cannot attract Section 302 of the IPC. The number of injuries is not the sole determining factor.
• The State emphasized that the nature of the injury, the part of the body where it was inflicted, and the weapon used are crucial indicators of the accused’s intention.
• The State cited several Supreme Court decisions to support its argument that a single injury can lead to a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, including:
  • Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319
  • Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322
  • Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444
  • Bavisetti Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2008) 15 SCC 725
  • Arun Raj v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 457
  • Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799
  • Ashokkumar Nagabhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 604
  • Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 592
  • Som Raj v. State of H.P. (2013) 14 SCC 246
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalicharan (2019) 6 SCC 809
  • State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram (2019) 13 SCC 131
  • Ananta Kamilya v. State of West Bengal (2020) 2 SCC 511
• The State also argued that the presence of eyewitnesses made the motive less significant, relying on Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) 15 SCC 622.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant-accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC or any other lesser offence, particularly Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the case would fall 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 Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307 and Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 SCC 557, stating that a single blow can attract Section 302 based on facts and circumstances.
• The Court followed Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319, reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302.
• The Court followed Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322, discussing the elements of a sudden fight and lack of premeditation.
• The Court followed Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444, considering factors like the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the force employed.
• The Court followed Bavisetti Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2008) 15 SCC 725, emphasizing that the nature of the offense depends on attendant circumstances, not just the single injury.
• The Court followed Arun Raj v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 457, reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302.
• The Court followed Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799, reiterating that intention can be inferred from the weapon used and the part of the body targeted.
• The Court followed Ashokkumar Nagabhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 604, reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302.
• The Court followed Vijay Ramkrishan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 592, reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302.
• The Court followed Som Raj v. State of H.P. (2013) 14 SCC 246, reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302.
• The Court followed State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalicharan (2019) 6 SCC 809, reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302.
• The Court followed State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram (2019) 13 SCC 131, reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302. The Court also discussed the requirements for Exception 4.
• The Court followed Ananta Kamilya v. State of West Bengal (2020) 2 SCC 511, reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302.
• The Court followed Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) 15 SCC 622, holding that motive is not significant in cases with eyewitnesses.
• The Court followed Jafel Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2019) 12 SCC 560, holding that the absence of motive does not weaken the prosecution case if the prosecution proves the case.
• The Court followed State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam [(1995) 1 SCC 326], reiterating that a single blow on a vital part of the body can attract Section 302.
• The Court followed Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465], reiterating that the intention to cause the injury and not the seriousness of the injury is relevant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The incident occurred during a sudden fight at a beer party, without premeditation.
• The fight was triggered by a sudden quarrel over serving beer to outsiders versus locals.
• The accused used a knife, a dangerous weapon, and inflicted a stab wound on the deceased’s back, which is a vital part of the body.
• The Court considered the medical evidence, which confirmed the stab wound was 8 cm deep.
• The Court noted that the accused had the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death.

The Court considered the arguments that a single blow should not attract Section 302 of the IPC, but it emphasized that the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the part of the body targeted are crucial factors. The Court also considered the exception of sudden fight without premeditation, but it held that the knowledge of the likelihood of causing death was present, thus placing the case under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

The court stated, “From the above stated decisions, it emerges that there is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The court also quoted, “The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not.”

The court further stated, “It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out.”

Key Takeaways

• A single blow can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide, but not always murder. The nature of the injury, weapon used, and part of the body targeted are critical factors.
• In cases of sudden fights, the lack of premeditation and the heat of passion can mitigate the offense from murder to culpable homicide.
• Motive is not always crucial in cases where there are eyewitnesses.
• The intention to cause the injury, not the seriousness of the injury, is the relevant factor in determining the offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo 8 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000, and in default, to further undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of a single blow, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is not automatic and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court reiterated that the nature of the injury, the part of the body where it is caused, and the weapon used are crucial indicators. The court also clarified that while a sudden fight without premeditation can mitigate the offense, the knowledge that the injury is likely to cause death is a crucial factor in determining whether the case falls under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC. This judgment reinforces the principle that each case must be assessed based on its unique facts and circumstances, and it clarifies that a single blow can still lead to a conviction for culpable homicide if the necessary elements are present.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Stalin vs. State modifies the High Court’s decision, changing the conviction from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The Court emphasized that while a single blow does not automatically rule out a murder conviction, the specific circumstances of the case—a sudden fight without premeditation and the absence of undue advantage—necessitated a lesser charge. This case underscores the importance of considering the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the intent and knowledge of the accused, when determining the appropriate charge in homicide cases.