A Supreme Court of India bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria has altered a murder conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I, IPC. The Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Anjaria, found that while the appellant had the “knowledge” that his actions could cause death, the “intention to cause death was missing.”
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar against a Gujarat High Court order dated 04.12.2009, which had confirmed his conviction and life sentence for murder handed down by the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, on 31.01.2000.
Finding that the appellant had already served 14 years in prison, the Supreme Court deemed this period sufficient sentence for the altered conviction and ordered his bail bonds to be discharged.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on 13.06.1998. According to the prosecution, the appellant had an initial quarrel with his brother on 12.06.1998, during which the deceased’s nephew, Rajesh (PW 4), intervened and sustained a knife injury from the appellant.
Later, in the intervening night at about 1:00 a.m. on 13.06.1998, the appellant went to the house of the deceased, Louis Williams, and began hurling abusive language. When the deceased came out and interfered, the appellant “inflicted stab injury by knife on the deceased on the left side of the back and on the right hand” and fled.
The victim was taken to L.G. Hospital by his sister, Gajraben (PW 2). An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 324 and 504 of the IPC. The victim underwent an operation and was subsequently discharged. However, he was later readmitted and “died while receiving the treatment in the afternoon of 26.06.1998,” thirteen days after the incident. The cause of death was identified as “Septicemia.” Consequently, the charge under Section 302 (murder) was added. The appellant voluntarily surrendered to the police on 29.06.1998.
Trial and High Court Findings
The City Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 504, IPC. The Trial Court reasoned that the knife injury was “sufficient in formal course to cause death” and that “merely because the deceased succumbed to the injuries after 10 days… it could not be said that the injury was not such which would cause death.” It held the murder was “committed intentionally and knowingly.”
The High Court of Gujarat, in appeal, confirmed the conviction, finding no discrepancy in the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Gajraben (PW 2) and Rajesh (PW 4), and noting that the injuries “subsequently developed into septic condition and the victim died of Septicemia.”
Appellant’s Arguments
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel, while assailing the conviction, submitted an alternative argument that the offence, in any case, would be a lesser one than murder under Section 302, IPC. It was argued that the act constituted ‘culpable homicide’ but did ‘not amount to offence of murder’. The defence also highlighted that the eyewitnesses were relatives of the deceased and emphasized the 13-day gap between the incident and the death.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Dharmila Shah (PW 8), which detailed three primary injuries: a “speared wound” below the belly, a “cut wound” on the hand, and a “crushed wound” on the right hand, along with internal injuries to the stomach and small intestine.
The bench then delved into the legal distinction between ‘murder’ (Section 300) and ‘culpable homicide’ (Section 299). The judgment, citing Kesar Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, noted, “Culpable homicide is genus, murder is its specie.”
Applying this principle, the Court found that the appellant inflicted serious injuries with a knife, and “it has to be concluded that the accused was liable to be attributed with the knowledge that the injuries which he was to inflict… would be sufficient to result into death in ordinary course.”
However, the Court identified “an element of impulse, anger and self-provocation” based on the preceding quarrel. The judgment held that the “intention” to kill was not established.
In a key observation, the Court stated: “it would not be correct to presume or view… that the appellant acted with premeditation to kill or that he acted in assailing the deceased with an intention to cause death. The degree of the offence committed could not be said to be partaking the act of murder as defined under Section 300, IPC, since it could be concluded that the intention to cause death was missing.”
The Court also considered “other attending aspects”:
- The injuries did not result in instantaneous death.
- The deceased died after 13 days while under treatment.
- The deceased “had developed septic conditions in the injuries suffered by him.”
- The cause of death was medically identified as ‘Septicemia’.
Based on these facts, the Court concluded, “Thus, the attack by the appellant remained with the knowledge but without intention to cause death.”
Final Decision
“Taking above factors cumulatively, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the appellant deserves to be converted from under Section 302, IPC to under Section 304 Part I, IPC,” the bench ruled.
The Court noted that as of 13.06.2014, the appellant had “already served in jail for more than 14 years and came to be enlarged on bail.”
Holding this period as sufficient punishment, the Court ordered: “The sentence of 14 years already undergone by the appellant shall be treated as sufficient and subserve the interest of justice. The bail bond of the appellant furnished to the Trial Court shall stand discharged.”
