Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Culpable Homicide Case: Shriram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Background

On September 4, 1987, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Laxmansingh and several others were returning from a Bhajan at Hemraj Mina’s house when they were attacked near the house of Shriram Jat. The attackers, including Shriram and other accused individuals, used lathis (sticks) and stones, causing injuries to multiple people. Hemraj Mina sustained serious injuries and later died.

The accused claimed that the prosecution witnesses were the aggressors and that they acted in self-defense by throwing stones. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court modified the conviction, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 147, IPC: Deals with the offence of rioting.
• Section 149, IPC: Concerns the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of the common object.
• Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 304, IPC: Defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 323, IPC: Defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 96, IPC: States that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
• Section 97, IPC: Deals with the subject matter of right of private defence.
• Section 98, IPC: Gives a right of private defence against certain offences and acts.
• Section 99, IPC: Lays down the limits of the right of private defence.
• Section 100, IPC: Defines when the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
• Section 101, IPC: Defines when the right of private defence of the body extends to causing any harm other than death.
• Section 102, IPC: Deals with the commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body.
• Section 105, IPC: Deals with the commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property.

Section 97 of the IPC states:

“Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend—
First.—His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;
Secondly.—The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The witnesses (PWs 2, 8, 9, and 11) were interested witnesses, being related to the deceased, making their testimony partisan.
• The prosecution’s failure to examine independent witnesses rendered their version unacceptable.
• The prosecution did not explain the injuries sustained by the accused, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution.

State’s Arguments:

• The trial court and High Court carefully analyzed the eyewitnesses’ evidence and found it cogent and credible, justifying the acceptance of the prosecution’s version.
• The minor injuries sustained by the accused did not affect the prosecution’s version.
• The High Court correctly concluded that the appellant was the main perpetrator and was rightly convicted and sentenced.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses should be discarded due to their relationship with the deceased.
2. Whether the non-explanation of injuries on the accused affects the prosecution’s case.
3. Whether the accused acted in self-defense.

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 cases:

• Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1976 SC 2263): Regarding the effect of non-explanation of injuries on the accused.
• Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 612): On the commencement and end of the right to private defense.
• Biran Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1975 SC 87): Regarding factors to consider when determining the right to private defense.
• Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 1 SCC 458: On the relevance of injuries received by the accused.
• Sekar alias Raja Sekharan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N. (2002 (8) SCC 354): On the relevance of injuries received by the accused.
• Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 1316): On the proportionality of force used in self-defense.
• Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v. The State of Bihar (1968 (3) SCR 525): Regarding the effect of the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries on the accused.
• Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1976 (4) SCC 394): Regarding the effect of the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries on the accused.
• Vijayee Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1990 SC 1459): Regarding the effect of the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries on the accused.
• Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 2593): Regarding the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries received by the accused persons.
• Hare krishna Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1988 SC 863): Regarding the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1976 SC 2263): The court used this authority to explain the principle that non-explanation of injuries on the accused can affect the prosecution’s case, but it does not automatically lead to rejection of the case if the evidence is otherwise clear and cogent.
• Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 612): The court referred to this case to define the circumstances under which the right to private defence can be exercised.
• Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 1316): The court cited this case to emphasize that a person apprehending death or bodily injury cannot be expected to weigh the force used in self-defense with golden scales.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and the assessment that the accused were the initial aggressors. The court emphasized that minor inconsistencies or omissions in the prosecution’s case should not overshadow the clear and cogent evidence presented.

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was based on the assessment of factual evidence and application of relevant legal principles, leading to the conclusion that the accused were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

“As noted in Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 1316), a person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons.”

“Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries.”

“In view of the legal position highlighted above, there is no substance in the plea relating to non-explanation of injuries on the accused persons. The High Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence of 5 years imprisonment cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed to be harsh.”

Key Takeaways

• The relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not automatically discredit their testimony if the evidence is cogent and credible.
• The prosecution’s failure to explain minor injuries on the accused does not automatically invalidate the case if the overall evidence is strong.
• The plea of self-defense requires demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the prosecution’s failure to explain minor injuries on the accused does not automatically invalidate the case if the overall evidence is strong and credible. This reinforces the principle that courts should assess the totality of evidence rather than focusing on isolated omissions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the assessment of the overall circumstances of the case. The judgment clarifies that minor injuries on the accused and the relationship of witnesses to the deceased do not automatically undermine the prosecution’s case if the evidence is otherwise strong and reliable.