Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar vs. State of Gujarat (23 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 23 April 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 378

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a claim of private defense justify a double murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where two individuals were killed in a violent altercation. The court examined whether the accused acted within their right to private defense or if their actions constituted murder. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On the night of July 1, 1987, around 12 midnight, in Village Prempara-Rampara, the appellants, Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar and another, allegedly attacked Bhura Govind and Lakha Arjan with spears and other weapons. Both Bhura Govind and Lakha Arjan died on the spot due to the grievous injuries they sustained. The incident stemmed from a dispute over right of way, where the complainant party had previously secured an injunction in a civil suit against the appellants. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on July 2, 1987, at 7 AM, and the appellants were arrested on July 17, 1987. The appellants also lodged a cross-case, registered as Sessions Case No. 97 of 1987.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants were tried in the Trial Court, which convicted them for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and did not impose a separate punishment for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad upheld this conviction on 24.10.2008. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court challenging their conviction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, stating, “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

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the deceased and their accomplices were the aggressors. They claimed that they were attacked by 9 individuals and sustained grievous injuries while protecting their land, thus they acted in self-defense.
• The appellants argued that the incident occurred spontaneously, without premeditation, and they did not act cruelly or unusually. They contended that their conviction should be under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The appellants pointed out that appellant No. 1 was found bleeding at the scene and was hospitalized from 02.07.1987 to 17.07.1987. They also presented a defense witness, Vajibai, who testified that appellant No. 1 informed her that they had been assaulted by 9 people and that she had called the police.
• The appellants relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jangir Singh vs. State of Punjab, which emphasized that the right to private defense should not be construed narrowly.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Gujarat):

• The State argued that the deceased were unarmed, and the appellants were armed with spears and axes, as testified by the injured witnesses PW-3 and PW-4.
• The State contended that the multiple stab wounds on the deceased’s chests indicated that the appellants did not act spontaneously but with premeditation.
• The State argued that the right of private defense does not extend to causing more harm than necessary for protection.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appellants acted in the exercise of their right of private defense?
2. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Jangir Singh vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 2499 of 2009, decided on 31.10.2018 – The appellants relied on this case, where the right of private defense was considered a valuable right and should not be construed narrowly. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that in Jangir Singh, the accused perceived an imminent threat, whereas, in the present case, the deceased were unarmed.

The Court also considered the following:

• Medical Evidence: The court examined the medical reports of the appellants, deceased, and injured witnesses, which included post-mortem reports and injury reports.
• Witness Testimony: The court considered the testimonies of PW-3 (Ramabhai Rajan), PW-4 (Govindbhai Punabhai), and the Investigating Officer, PW-13 (Murlidhar Vasu).

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Jangir Singh vs. State of Punjab, stating that the facts of the case were different. In Jangir Singh, the accused perceived an imminent threat, whereas, in the present case, the deceased were unarmed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The fact that the deceased were unarmed while the appellants were armed with spears and other weapons.
• The nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, which included multiple stab wounds on vital parts, indicating premeditation and not a sudden fight.
• The principle that the right of private defense does not extend to causing more harm than necessary for protection.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument of the appellants that they acted in private defense. The court reasoned that the deceased were unarmed, while the appellants were armed with spears and other weapons. The court also noted that the appellants inflicted multiple stab wounds on the vital parts of the deceased, indicating premeditation and not a spontaneous act. The court emphasized that the right of private defense does not extend to causing more harm than necessary for protection. The court also considered the medical reports and the witness testimonies to come to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of murder.

The Court found no merit in the argument that the appellants should be convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court stated that “Since there are multiple wounds, it cannot be said that the appellants have acted at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation and that the appellants are not taken any advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” The Court also noted that “It is not a case of single injury which one can infer on account of sudden fight.” The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stating that “The learned Trial Court as well as the High Court was perfectly justified in law in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• The right of private defense is not absolute and does not allow for the use of excessive force.
• Multiple injuries on vital parts of the body can indicate premeditation and negate the claim of a sudden fight.
• The court will consider the nature of the weapons used and the circumstances of the incident when determining whether the accused acted in private defense.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right of private defense does not extend to causing more harm than necessary, and multiple injuries on vital parts of the body indicate premeditation, thus warranting a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment reinforces the existing position of law regarding private defense and murder.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found that the appellants did not act in private defense and that the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident constituted murder. The judgment emphasizes the importance of not exceeding the necessary force in self-defense and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.