The High Court of Chhattisgarh, while altering a man’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, highlighted the persistent legal challenge in distinguishing between the two offences. The Court noted, “The academic distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ has always vexed the courts,” and cautioned that “confusion is caused if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions.”
This observation was made by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru while deciding the appeal of Ramdas Lakda. The Court found that the act of killing his wife with a ‘tangi’ (a type of axe) occurred during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, thereby falling short of murder. The appellant’s sentence was consequently reduced from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case stated that the appellant, Ramdas Lakda, was married to the deceased, Sumitra. The couple had two children. According to the prosecution, the appellant did not work, was addicted to alcohol, and would frequently quarrel with and assault his wife when she tried to stop him from drinking.
On the night of March 20, 2017, at approximately 9:00 PM, Sumitra’s brother-in-law, Mangal Say (PW-1), heard loud cries from the couple’s house. Upon rushing to the scene, he saw the appellant standing in the courtyard holding a blood-stained ‘tangi’. The appellant’s father, Sarodhan (PW-2), and grandfather, Supet (PW-4), were also present and informed Mangal Say that the appellant had killed his wife. Inside the kitchen, Mangal Say found Sumitra’s body lying near the stove with a deep cut on her neck.
A report was subsequently filed at the police post, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. The postmortem examination, conducted by Dr. S.K. Tiwari (PW-16), concluded that the death was homicidal, caused by excessive bleeding from a deep incised wound on the neck inflicted by a sharp weapon. The weapon was later recovered based on the appellant’s disclosure statement.
The trial court, after examining the evidence, found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment on November 30, 2022.
Arguments Before the High Court
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Vivek Sharma argued that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was unjustified. He contended that the incident was not premeditated but occurred in the “spur of moment and inebriated condition.” The counsel submitted that the case met the criteria of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, as it involved: (a) no premeditation; (b) a sudden domestic quarrel; (c) an inebriated state of the appellant; (d) a single blow; and (e) an absence of intention to cause death. He prayed for the conviction to be altered to Section 304 (Part I or Part II) of the IPC.
Representing the State, Panel Lawyer Nitansh Jaiswal supported the trial court’s judgment, arguing that the appellant had murdered the deceased by attacking her with a deadly weapon and that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was appropriate.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court first established that the death was homicidal, relying on the medical evidence and witness testimonies. The Bench then addressed whether the appellant was the perpetrator. It noted the compelling testimony of the appellant’s father, Sarodhan (PW-2), who stated that upon hearing a loud noise, he forcibly opened his son’s room and “saw that Sumitra was lying on the ground, her throat was cut and blood was oozing out. His son Ramdas was standing at the side with a sickle in his hand.” This, combined with the testimony of Mangal Say (PW-1), led the court to conclude that “all the circumstances of the case indicate that the accused himself killed his wife by hitting her with a tangia.”
The central question for the Court was whether the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, which laid down four requirements to invoke this exception: “(i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.”
Applying these principles, the High Court observed:
- Suddenness & No Premeditation: “The quarrel ignited over drinking issue of the appellant at the house. There is no evidence of prior animus, surveillance, or procurement of weapon in advance.”
- Heat of Passion: “Verbal altercation escalated quickly; the blow followed immediately; there is no cooling-off interval.”
- No Undue Advantage or Cruelty: “The parties were similarly placed and there is no evidence that the appellant exploited a helpless victim or continued assault after incapacitation… The evidence discloses limited blow and absence of stomping, repeated stabbing or torture-like conduct.”
The Court concluded that the conditions for Exception 4 were satisfied, thus classifying the offense as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The final determination was whether the act fell under Part I or Part II of Section 304. The Court reasoned that while the appellant may not have intended to kill, the nature of the act demonstrated a clear intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The judgment stated, “Here, the combination of (i) targeted strike to neck, (ii) the depth/force evidenced by internal damage, and (iii) the doctor’s opinion that the injury was sufficient to cause death, allows a safe inference of intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
The Court held that this squarely attracted Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Final Decision
In its final order, the High Court held, “The occurrence happened without premeditation, during a sudden quarrel, in the heat of passion, with the appellant in an inebriated condition. The single blow on a vital part imputes intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Accordingly, the case falls under Section 304 Part I IPC.”
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside. The appellant, who had been in jail since March 21, 2017, was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The criminal appeal was partly allowed to this extent.
