Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Domestic Violence Case: Paul vs. State of Kerala (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Homicide

Case Name: Paul vs. State of Kerala

Judgment Date: 21 January 2020

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 41
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a false claim of suicide by the accused absolve him of murder? The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed this question while examining a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court was tasked with determining whether the accused’s actions constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, delivered a unanimous judgment, affirming the conviction for murder.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Jessy, the wife of the appellant, Paul. The prosecution alleged that Jessy was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by Paul and his mother since their marriage on 31 August 1997. On 11 October 1998, the day of the incident, Jessy, reportedly depressed due to the harassment, went looking for her husband and found him consuming alcohol with friends. The prosecution stated that Paul assaulted Jessy in front of his friends and later, at around 11:00 PM, throttled her to death in their bedroom.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the trial court acquitted Paul and his mother of charges under Section 498-A (cruelty) and Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. However, the High Court of Kerala, in a prior judgment dated 29 March 2012, overturned the acquittal concerning Paul. The case was remanded to the trial court to continue proceedings from the stage of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, then convicted Paul under Section 302 of the IPC, a decision upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines culpable homicide.
• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines murder and its exceptions. It states that culpable homicide is murder if it falls under any of the four clauses mentioned in the section, unless it is covered by any of the five exceptions.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): States that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The explanation to this exception states that it is immaterial which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
• Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with offences requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by an intoxicated person. It presumes that the intoxicated person had the same knowledge as if they were not intoxicated, unless the intoxication was involuntary.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act: Deals with the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
• He contended that the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.
• The appellant’s counsel pointed out that the deceased had an abortion and was suffering from depression.
• He stated that the appellant was intoxicated on the night of the incident and that there was a quarrel, and that the appellant also sustained injuries.
• He argued that the fact that the appellant set up a case of suicide should not prevent the court from considering the case as per law.
• The counsel cited Partap v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1976) 2 SCC 798, Periasami and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 6 SCC 457, and State of U.P. v. Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336 to support his arguments.
• He also argued that the appellant’s acquittal under Section 498A of the IPC indicates that there was no matrimonial cruelty.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent-State’s counsel strongly supported the High Court’s order, asserting that this was a clear case of murder by throttling.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument to apply Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, despite the initial false claim of suicide, was a notable attempt to reframe the case as a sudden fight rather than a premeditated murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court distinguished Partap v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1976 (2) SCC 798]* stating that the principles of law cannot be applied irrespective of the facts of a particular case. The court held that even though in this case, the accused had a right of self-defence, the facts of the present case are different.
• The court distinguished Periasami and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu [1996 (6) SCC 457]* stating that the principles of law cannot be applied irrespective of the facts of a particular case. The court held that even though in this case, the accused was given the benefit of doubt, the facts of the present case are different.
• The court distinguished State of U.P. v. Lakhmi [1998(4) SCC 336]* stating that the principles of law cannot be applied irrespective of the facts of a particular case. The court held that even though in this case, the accused was given the benefit of Exception I to Section 300, the facts of the present case are different.
• The court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to convict the appellant for murder.
• The court did not apply Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the case was held to be murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The court explained the definition of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The court explained the definition of murder and its exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The court held that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not applicable as there was no sudden quarrel or fight.
• The court explained that despite intoxication, the accused would be presumed to have the same knowledge as if he were not intoxicated under Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The court applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to emphasize that the appellant had the burden to prove facts within his exclusive knowledge.
• The court explained and applied the principles regarding intoxication and intent from Basdev v. State of Pepsu [AIR 1956 SC 488]*, holding that an intoxicated person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his actions.
• The court explained and applied the three stages of determining whether an offense is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder from State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya [1976(4) SCC 382]*.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• False Claim of Suicide: The court found that the appellant’s claim that his wife committed suicide was false, which undermined his defense.
• Cause of Death: The medical evidence clearly indicated that the death was caused by throttling, not suicide.
• Lack of Evidence for Exceptions: The court found no evidence to support the applicability of any exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC, particularly Exception 4, which requires a sudden quarrel and fight.
• Injuries on the Body: The presence of injuries on the deceased’s body, apart from the neck, indicated that the death was a result of violence and not suicide.
• Exclusive Knowledge: The court emphasized that the appellant had the burden to explain what happened in the privacy of their bedroom, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Intoxication: The court held that the appellant’s intoxication did not negate his intent to commit the crime, as per Section 86 of the IPC.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%), such as the false claim of suicide, the cause of death, and the injuries on the body, than by legal considerations (40%), such as the interpretation of Section 300 and its exceptions.

The court considered alternative interpretations but found them unsupported by evidence. The court rejected the appellant’s claim that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, as there was no evidence of a sudden quarrel or fight. The court also rejected the argument that the appellant’s intoxication negated his intent to commit the crime, as per Section 86 of the IPC. The court concluded that the appellant’s actions amounted to murder under Section 300 of the IPC.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The appellant’s claim of suicide was false.
• The medical evidence confirmed that the death was caused by throttling.
• There was no evidence of a sudden quarrel or fight to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• The appellant’s intoxication did not negate his intent to commit the crime.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “We can safely conclude on the basis of the material and findings which has been rendered by the courts concurrently that the case of suicide set up by the appellant was a completely false plea. It is clear as day light that the appellant caused the death of his wife by throttling.”
• “The case which is sought to be set up before us revolves around the applicability of exception 4 to Section 3000 IPC which involves inter alia a sudden fight following a quarrel. What is conspicuous by its absence is a plea despite the opportunity he had of indicating about any such quarrel between him and his wife.”
• “The act of the appellant in the facts of this case clearly show that he has throttled his wife. None of the exceptions in Section 300 are attracted. The act amounts to murder within the meaning of Section 300 of the IPC.”

The bench was unanimous. There were no dissenting opinions.

The court analyzed the reasoning, legal interpretation, and application of the law to the facts and concluded that the appellant’s actions clearly constituted murder. The court discussed the potential implications for future cases, emphasizing that a false claim of suicide cannot absolve an accused of murder, especially when the evidence points to homicide by throttling.

Key Takeaways

• A false claim of suicide by the accused does not absolve them of murder if the evidence indicates homicide.
• The burden of proof lies on the accused to prove the applicability of any exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC.
• Intoxication does not negate the intent to commit a crime unless the intoxication was involuntary.
• The court will consider the facts and circumstances of each case individually, and the principles of law cannot be applied irrespective of the facts of a particular case.
• The injuries on the victim’s body can be a crucial factor in determining whether the death was a homicide or a suicide.
• If there is no evidence for a sudden quarrel or fight, exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC will not apply.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a false claim of suicide by the accused does not absolve them of murder if the evidence indicates homicide. The court also clarified that the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove the applicability of any exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC. This case reinforces the existing legal principles and provides clarity on the application of Section 300 and its exceptions in cases of homicide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, affirming that the act of throttling his wife constituted murder. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC or that his intoxication negated his intent. This judgment underscores the importance of factual evidence and the burden of proof in criminal cases, particularly in homicide cases where a false defense is presented.

Category:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 299, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 86, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Criminal Law
  • Homicide
  • Murder
  • Culpable Homicide
  • Domestic Violence

FAQ

Q: What is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
A: Section 302 of the IPC defines the punishment for murder, which is typically life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Q: What is culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
A: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is defined under Section 304 of the IPC. It refers to cases where the act of causing death does not meet the criteria to be classified as murder under Section 300 of the IPC. The punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is less severe than that for murder.

Q: What is Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC?
A: Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.

Q: What is the significance of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act?
A: Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person. In this case, it was used to emphasize that the appellant had the burden to explain what happened in the privacy of their bedroom.

Q: What is the impact of intoxication on criminal liability?
A: According to Section 86 of the IPC, an intoxicated person is presumed to have the same knowledge as if they were not intoxicated, unless the intoxication was involuntary. This means that intoxication generally does not negate criminal liability, except in cases where the intoxication was not voluntary.

Q: What does this case mean for people accused of murder?
A: This case emphasizes that a false claim of suicide will not absolve an accused of murder if the evidence points to homicide. The accused has the burden of proving any exceptions to the charge of murder. The case also highlights the importance of medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the death in determining whether a death is a murder or not.