Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Brutal Assault Case: Vinod Kumar vs. Amritpal & Ors. (2021) INSC 742

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 742

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Can an assault resulting in death be considered murder even if the perpetrators did not explicitly intend to kill the victim? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a brutal assault, clarifying the application of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the definition of murder. This judgment underscores the importance of the nature of injuries inflicted and their potential to cause death, irrespective of the assailant’s direct intent to kill.

Case Background

On October 5, 2005, Vijay Singh (PW1) and his brother, Balveer Singh, were returning to their village, Sherekan, after visiting Hanumangarh. As they walked from the railway station, they were accosted by accused individuals (respondent nos. 1 to 5). The accused forced Balveer Singh and Vijay Singh into a Tata Sumo vehicle. The vehicle proceeded towards Hanumangarh and then stopped in an open field. Balveer Singh was brutally assaulted. The accused then took Balveer Singh to a doctor, and later to a relative’s house. After realizing Balveer Singh had died, the accused smashed his face with bricks to prevent identification and threw his body into a canal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 364, 302/149, 201, and 323/149 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder. The High Court of Rajasthan, on appeal, upheld the conviction for all offenses except for murder. The High Court reduced the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of IPC, sentencing them to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant, the first informant and brother of the deceased, challenged the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 299 defines culpable homicide, while Section 300 defines murder. The key distinction lies in the intention and the nature of the act causing death. Section 300 specifies that culpable homicide is murder if the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows is likely to cause death, or if the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court also considered the exceptions to Section 300, which, if applicable, reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Section 299 of the IPC states:

“299. Culpable homicide.—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”

Section 300 of the IPC states:

“300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, 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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were on vital parts of his body, including fractured ribs, a ruptured lung, and liver damage.
• The medical board’s opinion confirmed that these injuries led to excessive bleeding and shock, which was the cause of death.
• The appellant contended that none of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC were applicable and that “thirdly” of Section 300 IPC was applicable.
• The appellant highlighted the post-mortem injuries, where the face of the deceased was smashed by the accused before disposing of the body, demonstrating a clear intent to cause harm.

Accused’s Arguments:

• The accused argued that there was no evidence to prove that weapons like iron rods and sticks were used during the assault.
• They claimed that the lack of intention to kill is evident from the fact that they took the deceased to a doctor.
• They also pointed out that they took PW1 to a relative’s house and had tea, indicating a lack of intention to cause death.
• The accused maintained that the High Court correctly reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

• Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 – The Supreme Court of India. This case was used to interpret “thirdly” of Section 300 of IPC.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465]*: The Court relied on this authority to interpret “thirdly” of Section 300 of the IPC, stating that once the intention to cause the bodily injury is proved, the rest of the inquiry is objective, and the only question is whether the injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, which included vital organs. The Court emphasized that the intention to cause the specific injury, not necessarily death, is sufficient to establish murder under “thirdly” of Section 300 of the IPC. The court noted the brutal nature of the assault and the fact that the accused smashed the deceased’s face, which indicated a clear intent to cause harm.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the High Court’s view that the injuries were on non-vital parts and that taking the deceased to a doctor indicated a lack of intent to kill. The court emphasized that the intention to cause the specific injury, not necessarily death, is sufficient to establish murder under “thirdly” of Section 300 of the IPC.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment clarifies that for a conviction under Section 300 “thirdly” of the IPC, the intention to cause the specific bodily injury is crucial, not necessarily the intention to cause death.
• The nature and location of injuries are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder. Injuries on vital parts of the body leading to death can be sufficient for a murder conviction.
• The fact that the accused took the victim to a doctor does not negate the intention to cause the specific bodily injury sufficient to cause death.
• The judgment highlights the importance of medical evidence in establishing the cause of death and the nature of injuries.
• This judgment reinforces that the intention to cause the specific injury, not necessarily death, is sufficient to establish murder under “thirdly” of Section 300 of the IPC.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks. If they fail to surrender, the Trial Court was directed to take action to arrest them. They were directed to undergo the remaining period of their sentence as per the Trial Court’s judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 300 “thirdly” of the IPC, the intention to cause the specific bodily injury is crucial, not necessarily the intention to cause death. The court reiterated the principle laid down in Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465], that if the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it is murder. This case does not change any previous position of law, but reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating the Sessions Court’s conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302/149 of the IPC. The Court held that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were on vital parts of the body and that the intention to cause the specific bodily injury was present, making it a case of murder under “thirdly” of Section 300 of the IPC. This judgment underscores the importance of the nature of injuries and their potential to cause death, irrespective of the assailant’s direct intent to kill.