Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Culpable Homicide: Pooranlal & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (25 October 2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the accused and convicting them for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Pooranlal & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Judgment Date: 25 October 2017

Date of the Judgment: 25 October 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 919

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s acquittal in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal assault. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in convicting two individuals for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, after the trial court had acquitted them. The Supreme Court, in a two-judge bench comprising of Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, upheld the High Court’s decision. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on August 30, 1990, in Village Nirtala, Madhya Pradesh. Hariya, a railway employee, was on his way to work when he was attacked. According to the prosecution, Hariya was assaulted by five individuals, including Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad. The attack was allegedly motivated by a previous dispute where Hariya, as head of the Samaj Panchayat, had imposed a fine on Gaya Prasad. Hariya sustained multiple injuries and eventually died on September 13, 1990, approximately 14 days after the incident.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, acquitted all five accused on May 7, 1991. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed this decision to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court partly allowed the appeal on December 8, 2006, upholding the acquittal of three accused (Mahendra, Shyamlal, and Ramlal) but reversing the acquittal of Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad. The High Court convicted them under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 each.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It states:

“Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, was also applied. 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.”

Arguments

The appellants, Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad, argued that they should also have been acquitted like the other three accused. They contended that there was insufficient evidence against them to justify their conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The State argued that the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad based on the evidence available, particularly the First Information Report (FIR) and the dying declaration of the deceased, Hariya.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal of Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad and convicting them for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 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:

The Supreme Court also considered the following provisions:

Judgment

The Court viewed the authorities as follows:

✓ State of Orissa vs. Bhagwan Barik, AIR 1987 SC 1265: This case was cited by the High Court to justify the conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court agreed with this application.

✓ Camila Vaz vs. State of Goa, AIR 2000 SC 1374: This case was also cited by the High Court to support the conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court found the application to be correct.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence. The Court noted that the High Court had rightly separated the case of the appellants from the other three accused based on the evidence presented. The Court also highlighted the consistency between the FIR and the dying declaration, which implicated Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad in the assault. The absence of a specific finding by the autopsy surgeon that the injuries were sufficient to cause death was noted, but it did not negate the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The court’s reasoning can be illustrated as follows:

The Court considered the argument that the appellants should have been acquitted like the other three accused but rejected it, stating, “The evidence available on record, in our opinion, did establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants’ case was capable of being separated from other three accused with a view to find out their role in the incident as against the other three accused.”

The Court also noted, “There was no motive on the part of the accused persons (appellants) to kill Hariya. The intention was to teach a lesson to Hariya because he had insulted Gaya Prasad in Panchayat on an incident which had occurred in marriage in their community in recent past.”

The Court further reasoned, “Dr. Bharadwaj (PW-14) who performed post mortem did not say in his evidence that injuries caused to Hariya were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused death, and lastly, Hariya survived for 14 days from the date of incident.”

The court did not find any alternative interpretation of the evidence that would warrant overturning the conviction.

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Court held that the High Court’s decision was based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the findings of the High Court were neither perverse nor against the evidence.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convict Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The Court emphasized the importance of the FIR and dying declaration as key pieces of evidence.
• The judgment clarifies that a High Court can reverse an acquittal if the trial court’s findings are perverse or against the evidence.
• The case highlights the application of Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in cases of assault leading to death.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail granted to Gaya Prasad was canceled, and he was to surrender to serve the remaining jail sentence. The Trial Court was directed to verify the jail records of Pooranlal to ascertain how much jail sentence he had already undergone.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court is justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court if the findings of the Trial Court are perverse or against the evidence on record. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The judgment reinforces the appellate powers of the High Court and the importance of evidence in criminal cases.