In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court of India reclassified a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the case of Devendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2015). The decision centered on an incident that unfolded in the “heat of passion” over a long-standing land dispute, leading the Court to conclude that the attack was not premeditated but occurred in a moment of intense emotion.
Case Background and Details
The conflict arose from a protracted dispute over agricultural land between the families of the appellants and the deceased, Bahal. The incident dates back to December 20, 2002, when Bahal and his mother, Rajni Bai, went to Village Chhirha to address a recent court directive on the disputed land with the village sarpanch, Ghurwaram Patel. As the discussion was underway, the appellants arrived at the scene armed with sticks, a rod, and an axe. They allegedly attacked Bahal after heated words were exchanged, leading to a violent confrontation. Bahal sustained severe injuries and later died from a head injury, with the autopsy citing coma induced by internal hemorrhage as the cause of death.
Initially, the appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kawardha and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld this decision, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments
Represented by Amicus Curiae Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, the appellants argued that the incident lacked premeditation, arising instead from a sudden quarrel fueled by the ongoing land dispute. Vasudeva contended that the appellants acted impulsively rather than with intent to kill, making the offense eligible for reclassification under Section 304 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Ravi Kumar Sharma, argued that the evidence supported a murder conviction, given the brutal nature of the attack.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
The three-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, closely examined the evidence and testimonies of key witnesses, including Rajni Bai (PW-1) and Dhannu Das (PW-2), a shopkeeper who witnessed the attack. The Court noted that while there was no doubt about the appellants’ involvement in the fatal assault, evidence suggested the incident was not pre-planned. The appellants had a prior history of disputes with the deceased over the contested land, heightening tensions on both sides.
In its judgment, the Court stated:
“Taking into consideration all these aspects, the possibility of the offence being committed by the appellants without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out. From the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, it cannot be said that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
The Court emphasized that while the appellants used weapons, including a stick and an axe—common tools for agriculturalists—the lack of excessive brutality and the absence of premeditation warranted a lesser charge. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Considering that the appellants had already served over 12 years in prison before being released on bail, the Court ruled that the time they had served would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Their sentences were adjusted to reflect the period already served, effectively releasing them from further imprisonment.
