Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Rejects Culpable Homicide: Sudhir Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 14 January 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 19

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a High Court modify a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the evidence suggests a clear intention to cause death? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, focusing on the nature of injuries inflicted and the intent behind them. The case revolves around an incident where the accused inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased, leading to a conviction for murder by the trial court, which was later modified by the High Court. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from an altercation between the complainant’s mother, Ramrati, and his aunt, Sarli, on March 13, 2008, at around 5:00 p.m. Following this, the accused individuals, showing support for Sarli, began pelting stones at the complainant’s house. The next day, March 14, 2008, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Ramrati was threatened by Accused Nos. 2 to 9 while fetching water. Subsequently, Accused Nos. 1 to 9, armed with deadly weapons, approached the shop of the complainant’s brother, Satish, and threatened him, causing him to flee. The accused then attacked the complainant’s father, Balwan Singh, at their house, also injuring the complainant and his cousin.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Surender @ Monu (Respondent No. 2) for offences under Sections 302, 148, 323, and 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. Other accused were convicted under Sections 323, 506, and 148 read with 149 IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment. The High Court modified Surender @ Monu’s conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, reducing his sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of the other accused were reduced to the period already undergone. The complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court against this modification.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 304, Part I, IPC: This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It states, “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
• Section 148, IPC: This section addresses rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: This section defines the concept of common object in an unlawful assembly.
• Section 323, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 506, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.

Arguments

The complainant argued that the High Court erred in modifying the conviction of Surender @ Monu from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The complainant contended that the nature of the injuries, particularly the head injuries inflicted with an iron rod, clearly demonstrated an intention to cause death. The complainant relied on the medical evidence, which showed multiple injuries, including severe head wounds, to support the argument that the act was intentional and not merely an act of culpable homicide. The complainant also argued that the High Court should not have reduced the sentences of the other accused to the period already undergone.

The accused, on the other hand, argued that the High Court’s modification was correct, stating the incident occurred on the spur of the moment and that the intention was not to cause death. They argued that the single blow on the head should not be considered as an act of murder. The accused also contended that the High Court was justified in reducing the sentences of the other accused.

The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments based on the nature of the injuries, the weapons used, and the circumstances of the incident.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in modifying the conviction of Surender @ Monu from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, particularly the severe head injuries caused by an iron rod. The Court emphasized that these injuries, coupled with the force used, indicated a clear intention to cause death, thereby establishing a case of murder rather than culpable homicide. The medical evidence, which detailed the extent of the injuries, including the sutured wound on the right temporal region and the contusion on the scalp, further solidified the Court’s conclusion that the accused intended to cause fatal harm.

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s decision to modify the conviction of Surender @ Monu from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The Court noted that the High Court had reduced the sentence based on the premise that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment and that there was no intention to cause death. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. The Court emphasized that the medical evidence clearly showed that the deceased had suffered severe head injuries, including a sutured wound of 22 cm with 16 sutures on the right temporal region and a contusion of 5×4 cm on the right parietal area. The Court also noted that the injuries had caused profuse bleeding and that the blood vessels were cut. The Court highlighted that the injuries were inflicted with an iron rod, which is a deadly weapon. The Court stated that the location of the injuries, the force with which they were inflicted, and the weapon used all indicated a clear intention to cause death. The Court also observed that the incident was not a spur-of-the-moment act, as there had been prior altercations between the parties. The Supreme Court reasoned that the act of Surender @ Monu did not fall within any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC, which defines murder. Therefore, the Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in modifying the conviction of Surender @ Monu to Section 304 Part I IPC. The Court relied on the case of Dhupa Chamar and Others v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 506 to support its conclusion that when a deadly weapon is used to inflict an injury on a vital part of the body, it indicates an intention to cause death. The Court also noted that the accused had not provided any reasonable explanation to show that he did not intend to inflict the injury that he did. The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s modification and restored the conviction of Surender @ Monu under Section 302 IPC for murder.

The Supreme Court stated, “Having regard to the weapons used, the situs of the injuries and the force with which the deceased was assaulted by the accused shows clear intention on the part of the said accused to commit murder.” The Court further added, “Merely because the accused assaulted the deceased on his head once or twice only, it cannot be said that the offence committed by him is under Section 304 Part-I IPC inasmuch as the incident had not occurred on the spur of the moment.” The Court also observed, “The medical records reveal that eight injuries were found on the body of the deceased out of which three injuries were inflicted on his head.”

The Court did not find any reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision to reduce the sentences of the other accused to the period already undergone, as the High Court had used its discretion judiciously.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature and location of injuries, along with the weapon used, are crucial in determining the intention behind an act of violence.
• The Court clarified that a single blow to a vital part of the body, especially with a deadly weapon, can be sufficient to establish an intention to cause death, thus constituting murder.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts should not modify murder convictions to culpable homicide unless there is clear evidence that the act was not intentional or was committed on the spur of the moment.
• The decision highlights the importance of medical evidence in determining the nature and severity of injuries and the role it plays in establishing the intention of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused, Surender @ Monu, is to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000. If the fine is deposited, the amount is to be made over to the legal representatives of the deceased as compensation. If the fine is not paid, the accused will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when an injury is inflicted on a vital part of the body with a deadly weapon, and the medical evidence supports that the injury was sufficient to cause death, it indicates an intention to cause death, and the offense would be murder under Section 302 IPC. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the importance of intent and the nature of injuries in determining the appropriate charge. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the High Court should not modify a conviction for murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, unless there is clear evidence that the act was not intentional or was committed on the spur of the moment, and also that the act did not fall under any of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment that had modified the conviction of Surender @ Monu from murder to culpable homicide. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s conviction of Surender @ Monu for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. This judgment underscores the importance of considering the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the intention behind the act in determining whether an offense constitutes murder or culpable homicide.