Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 21st July 2005
Citation: Appeal (crl.) 746 of 2003
Judges: P. Venkatarama Reddi and D.M. Dharmadhikari
Can a sudden quarrel during a wedding celebration lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this grim scenario in Suresh Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, a case arising from a tragic incident at a wedding in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether the accused’s actions, resulting in two deaths, constituted murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices P. Venkatarama Reddi and D.M. Dharmadhikari, upheld the conviction, emphasizing the cruel manner in which the accused used firearms against unarmed victims.
Case Background
On February 20, 1977, a wedding celebration in Tikari village, Aligarh District, turned deadly when a quarrel erupted between the wedding guests (Baratis). The incident occurred at the house of Sri Ram Nayi, where the Baratis were staying in a Chaupal (courtyard) of one Vikram Singh. During a dance performance, a remark made by one of the deceased, Ravindra Singh, led to a heated exchange of words and mutual abuses. The situation escalated when acquitted accused, Bhikari and Nawab Singh, allegedly incited the appellants to attack the group involved in the scuffle. The appellants, who were carrying firearms, then allegedly fired at Ravindra Singh and Mahendra Singh, resulting in their immediate deaths. Three other individuals, Dwarika Prasad, Karua, and Ujagar Singh, sustained injuries.
Nripendra Singh, the brother of the deceased, Ravindra Singh, filed a police report on the same night. The postmortem report indicated that Ravindra Singh had two firearm injuries on his chest and left side of his back, while Mahendra Singh had a firearm wound on the left side of his abdomen. The firearms used by the appellants were seized, along with empty cartridges from the scene, and sent for ballistic analysis. The ballistic expert’s report confirmed that cartridges were fired from the guns recovered from the appellants.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| February 20, 1977 | Wedding celebration at Sri Ram Nayi’s house in Tikari village, Aligarh District. |
| February 20, 1977 (Evening) | Quarrel erupts between Baratis after a remark by Ravindra Singh. |
| February 20, 1977 (Night) | Appellants allegedly fire at Ravindra Singh and Mahendra Singh, resulting in their deaths. Dwarika Prasad, Karua, and Ujagar Singh sustain injuries. |
| February 20, 1977 (Night) | Nripendra Singh, brother of the deceased, lodges a police report. |
| N/A | Appellants convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 307 read with 34 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment. Other two accused convicted under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. |
| N/A | Accused file appeals before the High Court. |
| N/A | High Court upholds the conviction and sentence of the appellants but sets aside the conviction of the other two accused. |
| May 6, 2003 | Supreme Court grants leave confined to the question of converting the conviction into one under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. |
| July 21, 2005 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeals, upholding the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 307 read with 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The other two accused were convicted under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants but acquitted the other two accused, giving them the benefit of doubt.
The Supreme Court granted leave confined to the question of whether the conviction could be converted into one for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provisions in question are:
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 300, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines murder. Exception 4 to this section is particularly relevant, as it defines when culpable homicide is not murder:
“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 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 109, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.
- Section 304, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with attempt to murder.
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellants:
- The incident happened without any premeditation or prior concert, upon a sudden quarrel.
- The resultant attack on the victims was unintentional.
- Therefore, the offence would appropriately fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, punishable under Section 304 Part I or II.
- The butt and the trigger guard of the gun of Suresh Chandra were found in a broken condition. A reasonable inference has to be drawn that the gun was non-functional as it would have been damaged in the course of altercation that ensued.
- The firing was accidental.
Arguments of the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh):
- The very fact that the accused-appellants used the fire arms in the course of a frivolous quarrel triggered off by the sarcastic remarks of Ravindra Singh would demonstrate beyond doubt that the appellants acted in a cruel manner.
- It would further demonstrate the intention to cause death or at any rate, to cause a bodily injury of the nature mentioned in clause thirdly of Section 300.
- The report of the Ballistic expert negatives the contention of the learned counsel that the gun would not have been used at all.
- It is difficult to believe that accidental firing would have taken place from all the three guns handled by the three appellants at about the same time.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC |
✓ Incident happened without premeditation. ✓ Sudden quarrel led to unintentional attack. ✓ Offence falls under Section 304 Part I or II. |
✓ Use of firearms in a frivolous quarrel demonstrates cruelty. ✓ Intention to cause death or bodily injury is evident. |
| Functionality of Suresh Chandra’s Gun | ✓ Gun was non-functional due to damage during the altercation. | ✓ Ballistic expert’s report confirms the gun was used. |
| Nature of Firing | ✓ Firing was accidental. | ✓ Unlikely that accidental firing occurred simultaneously from all three guns. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the conviction could be converted into one for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction could be converted into one for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. | No. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld. | The Court found that the appellants acted in a cruel and unusual manner by using firearms against unarmed victims during a frivolous quarrel. This negated the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
- Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, [2002] 3 SCC 327 (Supreme Court of India): In this case, Exception 4 to Section 300 was applied where injuries were caused with a `Bhala’ in the course of a sudden altercation. The Court held that the appellants had no intention to kill them nor did they act in a cruel or unusual manner.
- Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, [1989] 2 SCC 217 (Supreme Court of India): In this case, Exception 4 to Section 300 was applied where injuries were caused with a `knife’ in the course of a sudden altercation, and on the facts, it was held that the appellants had no intention to kill them nor did they act in a cruel or unusual manner.
- Sunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1988] Supp SCC 557 (Supreme Court of India): In this case, the appellant-accused killed the deceased by firing with his gun. The Court observed that it was not a premeditated fight and held that the action of the accused could reasonably be brought under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, [2002] 3 SCC 327 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The Court noted that the fact situations were different, as the present case involved shooting with fire-arms from a close range on vital parts of the body. |
| Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, [1989] 2 SCC 217 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The Court noted that the fact situations were different, as the present case involved shooting with fire-arms from a close range on vital parts of the body. |
| Sunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1988] Supp SCC 557 | Supreme Court of India | Questioned. The Court found it difficult to discern the ratio of this judgment and noted that no particular Exception was referred to. The Court also observed that it could not treat this case as a binding precedent applicable to the facts of the present case. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC | Rejected. The Court held that the appellants acted in a cruel and unusual manner by using firearms against unarmed victims, thus not satisfying the requirements of Exception 4. |
| Functionality of Suresh Chandra’s Gun | Rejected. The Court relied on the ballistic expert’s report, which confirmed that the gun was used, despite the damage to the butt and trigger guard. |
| Nature of Firing | Rejected. The Court found it difficult to believe that accidental firing would have taken place from all three guns simultaneously. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, [2002] 3 SCC 327:* The Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved injuries caused with a `Bhala’ and that the appellants had no intention to kill nor did they act in a cruel or unusual manner.
- Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, [1989] 2 SCC 217:* The Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved injuries caused with a `knife’ and that the appellants had no intention to kill nor did they act in a cruel or unusual manner.
- Sunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1988] Supp SCC 557:* The Court found it difficult to discern the ratio of this judgment and noted that no particular Exception was referred to.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Suresh Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Cruel and Unusual Manner: The Court emphasized that the appellants acted in a cruel and unusual manner by using firearms against unarmed victims during a frivolous quarrel. This negated the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
- Common Intention: The Court found that the appellants, enraged by what had happened at the wedding venue, deliberately wielded the firearms to cause injuries to the deceased persons. The manner in which the appellants took the extreme step of firing at victims, causing injuries on the vital parts of their bodies, demonstrated the common intention that impelled them to resort to the shooting spree.
- Ballistic Evidence: The Court relied on the ballistic expert’s report, which confirmed that cartridges were fired from the guns recovered from the appellants. This evidence corroborated the prosecution’s version and negated the appellants’ claim that the firing was accidental.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Cruel and Unusual Manner | 40% |
| Common Intention | 35% |
| Ballistic Evidence | 25% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (Consideration of legal aspects) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- The use of firearms in a sudden quarrel can lead to a murder conviction if the act is deemed cruel and unusual.
- The presence of common intention to cause injuries can result in a murder conviction, even if there was no premeditated plan.
- Ballistic evidence plays a crucial role in corroborating the prosecution’s version and negating the accused’s claims.
Directions
The Supreme Court observed that the facts and circumstances of the case prima facie justify remission of the sentence to some extent. However, having found the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, it was not possible for the Court to reduce the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court stated that it is open to the appellants to approach the State Government/Governor of the State for the commutation or remission of sentence. The Court also mentioned that the incident had taken place about three decades back and that the appellant, Suresh Chandra, is aged about 80 years now and is ailing. The Court expressed its hope that the applications for commutation/remission of sentence will be duly considered with expedition, taking into account the relevant circumstances.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the use of firearms in a sudden quarrel, resulting in death, can attract a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC if the act is deemed cruel and unusual, thereby negating the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The judgment reinforces the importance of considering the manner in which an act is committed when determining whether it constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Conclusion
In Suresh Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, emphasizing the cruel manner in which they used firearms against unarmed victims during a wedding altercation. The Court found that the appellants’ actions did not fall within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as they had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of a case when determining whether an act constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.