Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Fatal Shooting Case: Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2019)

Date of the Judgment: November 08, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1112

Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M. R. Shah, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a sudden quarrel justify a reduced charge of culpable homicide when a firearm is used? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where a man was convicted of murder, but the High Court reduced the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the circumstances under which Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be applied. The bench comprised Justices Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah, and S. Ravindra Bhat, with the judgment authored by Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Awadhesh Kumar at Police Station Khiri, District Lakhimpur Kheri, on July 11, 2006, at 6:45 PM. Awadhesh Kumar reported that his mother, Smt. Lajjawati, was complaining to Ravinder Verma about the bad behavior of his nephew, Vishun Kumar. This incident occurred around 5:30 PM on the same day. During the complaint, Sudhir @ Ramaudh, Rakesh, and Vishun Kumar were also present. An argument ensued, and the complainant’s brother, Anoop Kumar, and father, Ram Lakhan, arrived. They asked the four accused to leave. Angered by this, Vishun Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, and Sudhir @ Ramaudh allegedly incited Ravinder to shoot Lajjawati with his country-made pistol. Ravinder then shot Lajjawati, who was taken to the police station, where the FIR was lodged.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the case was registered under Sections 307, 504, and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, after Lajjawati’s death on the same day, the case was converted to one under Section 302 of the IPC (murder). The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against all four accused. The Trial Court convicted Ravinder, attributing the specific act of firing the shot to him, while acquitting the other three. Ravinder then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹20,000. Aggrieved by this modification, the original complainant, Awadhesh Kumar, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The central legal provision in this case is Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder. The section states, in part, that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or 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. The fourth clause of Section 300 IPC states that culpable homicide is murder 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.

Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC states that 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.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Original Complainant):

• The High Court erred in modifying the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
• The accused fired at the deceased from a close range, causing serious injuries that led to her death, which falls under clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC applies only when there is a mutual fight with blows from both sides, and the offender does not take undue advantage.
• In this case, the complainant’s side did not have any weapons, and the deceased did not inflict any blows. The accused came with a country-made firearm after a verbal altercation.
• The case of *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shivshankar (2014) 10 SCC 366* was relied upon to argue that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is not applicable in the absence of a mutual fight.

Arguments by the Respondent (Original Accused):

• The High Court rightly observed that it was not a planned crime, there was no prior intention, and it occurred in the heat of passion on the spur of the moment.
• The High Court correctly applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• The Trial Court’s observations while acquitting the other three accused indicated that there was no prior intention to commit murder, and the incident occurred suddenly.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue is:

• Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, based on the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shivshankar (2014) 10 SCC 366: The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is attracted only when there is a mutual fight or quarrel with blows from both sides, where the offender does not take undue advantage. The court reiterated that intention is a matter of inference, and when death is a result of intentional firing, the intention to cause death is evident unless the case falls under any of the exceptions.
• Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 330: The Supreme Court quoted this case to support its view that a ‘fight’ requires a bilateral transaction with an exchange of blows. The court noted that if the deceased was unarmed and did not cause any injury to the appellant, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court followed State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shivshankar (2014) 10 SCC 366* to reiterate the requirements for Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, emphasizing that a mutual fight with blows from both sides is necessary for the exception to apply.
• The Court followed Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 330* to support its view that a ‘fight’ requires a bilateral transaction with an exchange of blows, further clarifying that the absence of mutual combat means that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is not applicable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the use of a firearm from close range and the absence of a mutual fight. The Court emphasized that the accused’s actions demonstrated an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, thus falling under clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC. The Court also stressed that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC requires a mutual fight with blows from both sides, which was not present in this case. The Court’s reasoning was aimed at ensuring that the accused was held accountable for the gravity of the offense committed.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the facts of the case, with a significant emphasis on the absence of a mutual fight and the use of a firearm from close range. The legal considerations, while important, were secondary to the factual analysis.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Mutual Fight Requirement: Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC requires a mutual fight with blows from both sides. A mere quarrel or verbal altercation is not sufficient.
• Undue Advantage: If the offender takes undue advantage, such as using a firearm, the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is not available.
• Intention to Cause Death: When a person uses a firearm from close range, it is inferred that they had the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, falling under clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC.
• Reinstatement of Trial Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate the Trial Court’s conviction emphasizes that the facts and circumstances of each case must be carefully considered, and the High Court’s modification was not justified.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed respondent No. 2 (original accused No. 1) to surrender before the concerned Court to undergo the sentence imposed by the Trial Court within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) requires a mutual fight with blows from both sides, and the offender must not take undue advantage. The court clarified that a mere verbal altercation does not constitute a ‘fight’ within the meaning of the exception. The use of a firearm from close range is considered an undue advantage, which makes the exception inapplicable. This decision reinforces the existing legal position on the requirements for Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and clarifies that a sudden quarrel does not automatically reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the High Court erred in applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, as the incident did not involve a mutual fight with blows from both sides, and the accused had taken undue advantage by using a firearm. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the strict requirements for applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and ensures that offenders are held accountable for their actions.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Law
  • Culpable Homicide
  • Murder
  • Exceptions to Murder

FAQ

Q: What is the main point of this Supreme Court judgment?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that for a case to fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be a mutual fight with blows from both sides, and the offender must not take undue advantage. A mere verbal quarrel is not enough.

Q: What does “undue advantage” mean in this context?

A: Undue advantage means that the offender used a method or weapon that gave them an unfair advantage over the other party, such as using a firearm when the other party is unarmed.

Q: What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

A: Murder (Section 302 IPC) involves the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, while culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) is when the intention is not as clear or when certain exceptions apply, such as a sudden fight without premeditation.

Q: What happens if a person uses a firearm in a sudden fight?

A: If a person uses a firearm in a sudden fight, it is likely to be considered an undue advantage, and the exception of sudden fight may not apply. This means the person could be charged with murder rather than culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Q: What should I do if I am in a situation where a fight breaks out?

A: It is best to avoid any physical altercation. If a fight breaks out, try to de-escalate the situation and call the police. Do not use any weapons or take undue advantage, as this could lead to serious legal consequences.