Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Patricide Case: Chherturam vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2022. Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1317 of 2022. Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha. Can a drunken brawl between a father and son, resulting in the father’s death, be considered murder, or does it fall under the exception of culpable homicide not amounting to murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a son killed his father during an alcohol-fueled fight. The court examined whether the son’s actions constituted murder or a lesser offense. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

On the night of July 26-27, 2010, between 10:00 PM and 12:30 AM, Chherturam (the appellant), and his father, Goienda (the deceased), were drinking together. A quarrel ensued, and Chherturam assaulted his father with a wooden log (“Nagar Wood”). The neighbor, Chamruram (PW-8), witnessed the assault. Goienda fell to the ground and died. Chherturam’s brother (PW-4) was also present when Chherturam admitted to killing his father. The FIR was lodged the next morning by PW-8 at the Darima Police Station. Chherturam was arrested on July 28, 2010. Based on Chherturam’s disclosure statement, the police recovered the wooden log and a lungi from his courtyard and sent them for forensic examination.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambikapur, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted Chherturam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on October 15, 2012, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed Chherturam’s appeal on April 8, 2015. The Supreme Court issued notice on the Special Leave Petition on July 18, 2022, limited to the question of whether the case falls under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC instead of Section 302. Arguments were heard on August 22, 2022, after granting leave.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder, and its Exception 4, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights. Section 86 of the IPC, concerning offenses committed under intoxication, is also relevant. 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.”

Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC reads:

“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. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.”

Section 86 of the IPC states:

“86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.—In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant and the deceased were consuming liquor and started fighting under the influence of alcohol.
• During the altercation, the appellant picked up a wooden log and inflicted a few injuries, resulting in his father’s death.
• There was no premeditation or intention to kill, which means the essential ingredients of Section 300 of the IPC were absent.
• The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was erroneous and the case should be considered under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.
• Alcohol was found in the deceased’s stomach, indicating the influence of intoxication on both parties.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• In cases of homicide within the privacy of a house, there is a burden on the inmates to offer a cogent explanation for the crime.
• The testimonies of witnesses established the crime.
• The case falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, but the nature of injuries indicates cruelty and brutality.
• The injuries on vital areas such as the skull, chest, and abdomen, leading to broken bones, demonstrate that the appellant acted with brutality.
• The benefit of Section 300 Fourthly extends to acts committed with the knowledge that the result will be death, which was a practical certainty in this case.
• Section 86 of the IPC attributes full knowledge to the appellant, and the defense of being under the influence of liquor is not available.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the present case falls under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of Section 302 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Surain Singh v. State of Punjab [(2017) 5 SCC 796]: The court considered this case but distinguished it based on the facts of the present case.
• Manokaran v. State of T.N. [(2010) 15 SCC 562]: The court applied the ratio of this case, noting that the nature of injuries showed cruelty and brutality, thus the case does not fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC.
• A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya [(1976) 4 SCC 382]: The court considered this case in the context of Section 300 Fourthly, but did not find it directly applicable to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the brutal nature of the attack, noting the multiple injuries on vital areas of the body. The court highlighted that despite the absence of premeditation, the manner in which the injuries were inflicted demonstrated a cruel and merciless act, thus negating the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The court also stated that the influence of alcohol is not a valid defense under Section 86 of the IPC.

The court’s reasoning was that while the fight occurred suddenly and without premeditation, the manner and nature of the injuries inflicted by the appellant were brutal and merciless. The court noted that there were eleven injuries on the deceased’s body, including multiple injuries on the head, broken ribs, and contusions on the chest and abdomen. The court stated, “It is clearly a case of mercilessly beating on all the vital parts of the body and reigning blows, albeit with a wood piece, on head and on different parts of the head again and again.” The court further observed, “With these kinds of blows, there would be no possibility of the deceased surviving. Maybe it was under the influence of liquor, but the nature of blows was such that the endeavour was to end the life of the deceased, the father.” The court emphasized that the attack was “an act in a cruel and brutal manner taking advantage of the situation even if there was no pre-meditation.” The court rejected the argument that the case should fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, citing the ratio of Manokaran v. State of T.N. [(2010) 15 SCC 562]. The court also clarified that the influence of alcohol is not a valid defense under Section 86 of the IPC, stating, “Liquor got the better of the appellant. That, however, is no defence in view of Section 86 of the IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• The nature and severity of injuries are critical in determining whether a case falls under the exception of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Even in cases of sudden fights, if the manner of inflicting injuries is cruel and brutal, the accused may be convicted of murder.
• The influence of alcohol is not a valid defense for crimes requiring specific intent or knowledge under Section 86 of the IPC.
• The court’s emphasis on the merciless nature of the attack underscores the importance of considering the circumstances and manner of the crime.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State to consider the case of the appellant for remission once he completes the mandatory sentence as per the policy for such consideration.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even in a sudden fight, if the injuries inflicted are brutal and merciless, the case will not fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, and the accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. This case reinforces the principle that the nature and manner of inflicting injuries are critical in determining the nature of the offense, and the influence of alcohol is not a valid defense under Section 86 of the IPC in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Chherturam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his father. The court found that the nature of the injuries inflicted during the fight, despite the absence of premeditation, were brutal and merciless, thus negating the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The court also clarified that the influence of alcohol is not a valid defense under Section 86 of the IPC. The Supreme Court directed the State to consider the case of the appellant for remission once he completes the mandatory sentence as per the policy for such consideration.

Category

Parent category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child categories: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 86, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Law; Culpable Homicide; Murder; Patricide; Sudden Fight; Intoxication; Remission; Supreme Court Judgments

FAQ

Q: What is patricide?

A: Patricide is the act of killing one’s father.

Q: What is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

A: Section 302 of the IPC deals with the punishment for murder. It prescribes imprisonment for life or the death penalty.

Q: What is Section 300 of the IPC?

A: Section 300 of the IPC defines murder. It also includes exceptions where culpable homicide is not considered 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 without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner.

Q: What is Section 86 of the IPC?

A: Section 86 of the IPC deals with offenses committed by an intoxicated person. It states that if an act requires a specific intent or knowledge, an intoxicated person will be treated as if they had that knowledge unless they were intoxicated against their will.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, stating that the nature of the injuries inflicted were brutal and did not fall under the exception of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Q: Does alcohol consumption excuse a crime?

A: No, under Section 86 of the IPC, voluntary intoxication is not a valid defense for crimes requiring specific intent or knowledge.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment emphasizes that the nature and severity of injuries are critical in determining whether a case falls under the exception of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It also reinforces that influence of alcohol is not a valid defense.