Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction: Suresh vs. State of Kerala (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2023
Citation: (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 178 of 2020)
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a fight that starts as a quarrel and escalates into a fatal attack be considered murder? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case where the accused, after an initial fight, returned to fatally assault the victim. This case explores the crucial distinction between murder and culpable homicide, focusing on the intention and circumstances surrounding the act. The bench comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. The judgment was authored by Justice Rastogi.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred at the residence of the victim, Devarajan, who lived with his wife, PW-13, in quarter no. 109 of Siruvani Estate. The prosecution’s case is that the accused, Suresh, was found guilty of murder based on the testimony of PW-13, the victim’s wife and an eyewitness, along with corroborating evidence from PW-14 and PW-1, and the recovery of the weapon.

According to the prosecution, the incident unfolded in two distinct episodes. Initially, the accused came to the victim’s house and quarreled with him. This escalated into a physical fight where the victim allegedly stabbed the accused. Following this, the accused left the house. Later, while the victim and PW-13 were sleeping, the accused returned, armed with a wooden stick and a country grinding stone. He attacked the victim, hitting him on the head with the stone, and also assaulted PW-13.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge initially found the appellant guilty under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offense under Section 449 IPC, and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offense under Section 302 IPC.

The High Court affirmed this conviction. The Supreme Court issued a limited notice to consider if the case fell under Section 304 Part I of the IPC instead of Section 302, based on the appellant’s submission.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines the punishment for murder:
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with house-trespass in order to commit an offense punishable with death:
“Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The Court also considered the distinction between murder under Section 300 and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The exceptions to Section 300 were also considered to determine if the case could fall under culpable homicide.

Arguments

The counsel for the appellant argued that the case should fall under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than Section 302, suggesting that the act was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the moment.

The prosecution argued that the accused committed murder. They emphasized that the accused returned to the victim’s house after the initial fight and attacked the victim while he was sleeping, indicating a clear intention to cause death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the case falls within the contours of Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or under Section 302 of the same code.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court did not explicitly cite any previous cases or books in the provided text. However, the court considered the legal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the sequence of events and the nature of the attack. The fact that the accused returned to the house after the initial quarrel and attacked the victim while he was sleeping indicated a premeditated intention to cause death, rather than an act committed in the heat of the moment. The severity of the injuries, particularly those to the head and chest, also suggested a clear intent to inflict fatal harm.

The Court considered the argument that the case might fall under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but rejected it, emphasizing that the attack was not a result of a sudden fight. The court stated,
“On consideration of the prosecution evidence and of PW-13 which is supported by PW-14 in particular, we are of the view that the death of the victim was not caused in the heat of the sudden fight and it was a case of murder under Section 302 IPC and not under any exceptions of Section 300 IPC.”

The Court also noted,
“The medical evidence adduced by PW-7 shows that injury nos. 6 and 8 are caused possibly by hitting with MOI stone. Injury no. 6 is on the head and injury no. 8 is on the back of chest. It also reveals from the post-mortem report that the heavy grinding stone was used for the commission of offence and the pressure was applied while inflicting injury on the body of the victim, that too over the vital parts, head and chest.”

The court further observed,
“A strict scrutiny of the oral evidence tendered by PW-13 would show that there is no embellishment but what is narrated by her is the true version of what she had experienced on the alleged date and time of the incident. She had given a narration of the alleged incident which is having two separate episodes.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that an attack following an initial quarrel can still constitute murder if there is a clear intention to cause death.
• The court highlighted that the act was not committed in the heat of a sudden fight, as the accused returned to attack the victim while he was sleeping.
• The severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim, particularly on vital parts like the head and chest, was a significant factor in determining the intention of the accused.
• The testimony of the eyewitness (PW-13) was considered credible and supported by other evidence.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a fatal attack following an initial quarrel can be classified as murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if the act is not committed in the heat of a sudden fight and there is a clear intention to cause death. This case reinforces the importance of considering the sequence of events, the nature of the attack, and the injuries inflicted when determining whether a case falls under murder or culpable homicide. The Supreme Court upheld the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court’s decision underscores that a break in the sequence of events, such as the accused leaving and then returning to attack the victim while he was sleeping, demonstrates a clear intention to cause death and negates the possibility of the act being classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.