Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in “Phakadiyat” Attack Case: State of Uttarakhand vs. Sachendra Singh Rawat (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 04 February 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 143

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a sudden fight during a social gathering mitigate a murder charge to culpable homicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man was fatally attacked with a wooden piece after an altercation during a wedding ceremony. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On November 26, 2014, a village was celebrating a Mehendi ceremony for a wedding. During the night, an altercation occurred between Virendra Singh (the deceased) and Sachendra Singh Rawat (the accused). While villagers intervened to stop the fight, later that night, around 12:00 AM, the accused attacked Virendra with a “Phakadiyat,” a rough piece of wood. The accused struck Virendra on the head, and when Virendra tried to escape to his house, the accused chased him and continued the assault. Virendra sustained multiple head injuries, including a skull fracture and a frontal wound. Despite being taken to a hospital, he died on December 5, 2014. The wife of the deceased filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused, leading to a police investigation and a charge sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court found the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court, however, overturned the trial court’s decision, stating that the incident was a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion, thus falling under the Fourth Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court reduced the sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The State of Uttarakhand appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines murder. The section states that culpable homicide is murder if the act is done with the intention of causing death, or if the act 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 if the act 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 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. The Fourth Exception to Section 300 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

State of Uttarakhand’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the High Court erred in applying the Fourth Exception of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The State contended that the High Court did not properly consider the severity of the injuries and the fact that the attack occurred after a break from the initial altercation.
• The State emphasized that the accused chased the deceased and continued to beat him, indicating that it was not a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
• The State argued that the use of the “Phakadiyat” with such force to cause multiple grievous injuries, including a skull fracture, demonstrated an intention to cause death.
• The State relied on several Supreme Court judgments including Stalin vs. State, (2020) 9 SCC 524, Mahesh Balmiki vs. State of M.P., (2000) 1 SCC 319, Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat, (2003) 9 SCC 322, Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444, Singapagu Anjaiah vs. State of A.P., (2010) 9 SCC 799, State of Rajasthan vs. Kanhaiya Lal, (2019) 5 SCC 639, Arun Raj v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 457, Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 10 SCC 604, State of Rajasthan vs. Leela Ram, (2019) 13 SCC 131, Bavisetti Kameswara Rao vs. State of A.P., (2008) 15 SCC 725, and Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, to support its claim that the case was indeed murder.

Accused’s Arguments:

• The accused argued that the High Court correctly applied the Fourth Exception of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The accused contended that the incident was a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion during the Mehendi ceremony.
• The accused argued that the “Phakadiyat” was a rough piece of wood, not a weapon, and that there was no premeditation to kill the deceased.
• The accused supported the High Court’s decision to reduce the sentence, arguing that it was not a cold-blooded murder.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the case falls under the Fourth Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, thereby reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the case of Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465* to emphasize that the intention to cause the injury is presumed unless the evidence suggests otherwise. The Court also referred to Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat, (2003) 9 SCC 322* to clarify that a sudden fight implies mutual provocation and that the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Further, the Court considered Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444* to highlight the factors to consider when determining the intention to cause death. The Court also relied on Singapagu Anjaiah vs. State of A.P., (2010) 9 SCC 799* to emphasize that the intention to cause death can be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault, and the nature of the injuries caused. All these authorities were used to establish that the accused intended to cause the death of the deceased and that the case did not fall under the exception of a sudden fight.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the nature of the attack and the severity of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. The Court noted that the attack was not a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion, as the incident occurred after a break from the initial altercation. The accused chased the deceased and continued to beat him, indicating a clear intention to cause harm. The use of a “Phakadiyat” with such force that it resulted in a skull fracture and multiple grievous injuries further solidified the Court’s conclusion that the accused intended to cause death.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the incident was a sudden fight in the heat of passion, stating that the second incident occurred after a break from the initial altercation. The court emphasized that the severity of the injuries and the force used indicated an intent to cause death and that the case fell within clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, thus constituting murder. The court also considered the multiple grievous injuries sustained by the deceased, including a skull fracture, which indicated that the accused used the “Phakadiyat” with such force that it resulted in death.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “Therefore, the second incident cannot be said to be a result of sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.”
• “The main cause of death was injuries sustained by the deceased on his head.”
• “Thus, having caused the grievous injuries with such a force, how can the accused get the benefit of fourth exception to Section 300 IPC.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that a break between an initial altercation and a subsequent attack negates the “sudden fight” exception under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The severity of injuries and the force used in an attack are crucial in determining the intention of the accused.
• The use of a weapon, even if it is an object like a piece of wood, can indicate an intent to cause death, especially if used with significant force.
• The judgment reinforces that the “sudden fight” exception is not applicable if the attack occurs after a break from the initial altercation.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a break between an initial altercation and a subsequent attack negates the “sudden fight” exception under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This clarifies that the exception is not applicable if the attack occurs after a break from the initial altercation and that the severity of injuries and the force used in an attack are crucial in determining the intention of the accused. It reinforces the established legal principles regarding the intention behind the act and the circumstances under which culpable homicide can be classified as murder. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the sequence of events and the nature of the attack in determining culpability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the trial court’s conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the attack was not a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion and that the severity of the injuries indicated an intent to cause death. This ruling underscores the importance of considering all circumstances surrounding an incident to determine whether it constitutes murder or culpable homicide.