Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Axe Attack Case: State of Rajasthan vs. Leela Ram (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13th December, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 1067
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and M.R. Shah, J.

Can a single blow with a lethal weapon on a vital part of the body be considered murder? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Leela Ram, where the accused was convicted for murder after inflicting a fatal axe blow to the head of the deceased. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which such an act constitutes murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) rather than culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment, with Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On February 27, 2003, at approximately 6:30 PM, Ram Kumwar Swami was on his way to a chakki (grinding mill) in Singhana, Rajasthan. While passing by a hand pump near Sriram Swami’s house, he was attacked by three individuals: Rajesh, Jagdish, and Leela Ram (the respondent). The prosecution’s case was that Leela Ram struck Ram Kumwar Swami on the skull with an axe, which resulted in his death. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Satya Narayan Swami (PW-2). The three accused were charged under Sections 341, 323, 336, and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of four eye-witnesses: Basanti Devi (PW-1), Satya Narayan Swami (PW-2), Nathu Ram (PW-3), and Gyarsi Lal (PW-4). Gyarsi Lal (PW-4) was also an injured witness. Dr. Hari Singh Gothwal (PW-5), who conducted the post-mortem, confirmed that the cause of death was the skull injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The prosecution also presented evidence of a blood-stained axe recovered at the behest of the respondent.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Leela Ram under Sections 341, 323, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitting Rajesh and Jagdish. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in its judgment dated August 13, 2008, partially allowed Leela Ram’s appeal. The High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to the period already undergone (approximately five years and five months). The State of Rajasthan then appealed to the Supreme Court against this modification of conviction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder, and its exceptions. Specifically, the court considered whether the act fell under the ambit of murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC or whether it fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, which states:

“Exception 4. – 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.”

The Court also considered Section 302 of the IPC, which prescribes the punishment for murder, and Section 304 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The relevant provisions are:

• Section 300, Indian Penal Code: Defines murder. The relevant part of the section is: “Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—Secondly—If it 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—Thirdly—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—Fourthly—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: Prescribes punishment for murder.
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code: Prescribes punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Rajasthan:

• The State argued that the consistent testimonies of four eye-witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4) clearly indicated that Leela Ram inflicted the axe injury on the deceased’s skull.
• The medical evidence, specifically the post-mortem report and the testimony of PW-5, confirmed that the death was caused by a sharp-edged weapon.
• The recovery of the blood-stained axe (Exh. P-18) further corroborated the prosecution’s case.
• The State contended that the High Court’s finding that the incident occurred without premeditation was not supported by evidence. The use of a lethal weapon on a vital part of the body indicated an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.
• The State argued that the case fell under Section 300 (Fourthly) of the IPC, as the act was so imminently dangerous that it would likely cause death.

Arguments by the Respondent (Leela Ram):

• The respondent argued that the Trial Court had disbelieved the prosecution’s case regarding the two co-accused, Rajesh and Jagdish, who were alleged to have used a lathi during the incident.
• The respondent emphasized that PW-5 stated that the injury could have been caused by a blunt object.
• The respondent contended that the High Court’s judgment convicting him under Section 304 Part II of the IPC should not be disturbed.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction of the respondent from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Mahesh Balmiki v State of M P, (2000) 1 SCC 319, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that a single blow could attract Section 302 of the IPC depending on the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the injury, weapon used, and manner of infliction.
• Hukam Chand v State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 421, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that a blow on the skull with a pharsa (a sharp-edged weapon) could attract a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, especially when the accused brought the weapon to the scene.
• Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v State of Gujarat, (2003) 9 SCC 322, Supreme Court of India: The Court discussed the ingredients of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, emphasizing that it applies to sudden fights without premeditation, where the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
• Pulicherla Nagaraju v State of A P, (2006) 11 SCC 444, Supreme Court of India: The Court outlined the factors to be considered when determining whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 of the IPC, including the nature of the weapon, the part of the body targeted, and the circumstances of the incident.
• Singapagu Anjaiah v State of A P, (2010) 9 SCC 799, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the intention to cause death can be inferred from the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the nature of the injuries.
• Som Raj v State of H P, (2013) 14 SCC 246, Supreme Court of India: The Court held that a single blow on the skull with a darat (a sharp-edged weapon) could attract a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, especially when the blow was struck with ferocity.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 300, Indian Penal Code: Definition of murder and its exceptions.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: Punishment for murder.
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court used the authorities to establish that a single blow with a lethal weapon on a vital part of the body could constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The court relied on Mahesh Balmiki v State of M P [(2000) 1 SCC 319]* to establish that a single blow can attract Section 302 of the IPC. The court relied on Hukam Chand v State of Haryana [(2002) 8 SCC 421]* to establish that a blow on the skull with a sharp-edged weapon can attract Section 302 of the IPC. The court relied on Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v State of Gujarat [(2003) 9 SCC 322]* to explain the ingredients of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. The court relied on Pulicherla Nagaraju v State of A P [(2006) 11 SCC 444]* to determine whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 of the IPC. The court relied on Singapagu Anjaiah v State of A P [(2010) 9 SCC 799]* to establish that intention can be inferred from the weapon, part of the body, and nature of injuries. The court relied on Som Raj v State of H P [(2013) 14 SCC 246]* to establish that a single blow on the skull with a sharp-edged weapon can attract Section 302 of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the nature of the weapon used, the location of the injury, and the consistent testimonies of the eye-witnesses. The Court emphasized that the respondent used a lethal weapon (axe) to inflict a blow on the skull of the deceased, which is a vital part of the body. The Court noted that the injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon, which was corroborated by the medical evidence. The Court also highlighted that the respondent’s actions were not a result of a sudden fight or provocation, as the deceased was unarmed when attacked. The Court found that the respondent’s act was so imminently dangerous that it would likely cause death, thereby satisfying the conditions for murder under Section 300 (Fourthly) of the IPC.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the incident occurred without premeditation. The Supreme Court emphasized the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the vital part of the body targeted. The Court noted that the High Court had ignored the consistent evidence and arrived at its conclusion based on surmise. The Court also rejected the argument that the acquittal of the co-accused should cast doubt on the case against the respondent. The Court held that the respondent’s act was so imminently dangerous that it must have caused death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and therefore falls under Section 300 (Fourthly) of the IPC.

The Court stated, “The High Court has, in our view, proceeded entirely on the basis of surmise in opining that the death was caused without pre-meditation and on the spur of the moment.”

The Court also observed, “Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the injury which was caused to the deceased was [within the meaning of Section 300 (Fourthly) ] of a nature that the person committing the act knew that it was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

The Court further stated, “In the above circumstances, we are affirmatively of the view that the judgment of the High Court is manifestly perverse and is totally contrary to the evidence on the record. The interference of this Court is warranted to obviate a complete failure or miscarriage of justice.”

The Court unanimously held that the High Court’s judgment was perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. There was no dissenting opinion.

Key Takeaways

• A single blow with a lethal weapon on a vital part of the body can constitute murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The intention or knowledge of the offender can be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the circumstances of the incident.
• The presence of premeditation is not always necessary to establish murder, as the “Fourthly” clause of Section 300 of the IPC covers acts that are so imminently dangerous that they are likely to cause death.
• The acquittal of co-accused does not automatically undermine the evidence against the main accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent surrender to his sentence immediately. A copy of the order was to be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the area concerned to secure compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a single blow with a lethal weapon on a vital part of the body can constitute murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code if the act falls under clause Fourthly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. This case reinforces the principle that the intention or knowledge of the offender can be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the circumstances of the incident. This judgment clarifies and reaffirms the existing legal position regarding the interpretation of Section 300 of the IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the Trial Court’s conviction of Leela Ram under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the act of inflicting an axe blow on the skull constituted murder, not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment underscores the importance of considering the nature of the weapon, the location of the injury, and the circumstances of the incident when determining the culpability of an accused in cases of homicide.