2013 (5) TMI 1015 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant has been rightly convicted for the capital offence and if not whether the act attributed to him would constitute a lesser offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of the I.P.C - HELD THAT - The incident was witnessed by the wife of the deceased and one other who was also present in the field nearby at the time of the occurrence. Two days after the occurrence when the condition of the deceased became precarious, wife filed a complaint at the Police Station on the basis whereby u/s 326, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C was registered by the police. Investigation of the case was taken up by Police Sub Inspector who recorded the panchnama of the scene of the crime and arrested the accused persons. The deceased eventually succumbed to his injuries whereupon Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was added to the case. Whether the appellant has been rightly convicted for the offence of murder or if the act attributed to him would constitute a lesser offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder. - HELD THAT - According to the facts of the case, the nature of the simple injury inflicted by the accused, the part of the body on which it was inflicted, the weapon used to inflict the same and the circumstances in which the injury was inflicted do not suggest that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. All that can be said is that the appellant had the knowledge that the injury inflicted by him was likely to cause the death of the deceased. The case would, therefore, more appropriately fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Court allow this appeal but only to the extent that instead of Section 302 IPC the appellant shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The fine imposed upon the appellant and the default sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC.
2. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
3. Determination of appropriate conviction under Section 304 Part I or II IPC.
4. Consideration of compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Appellant's Conviction under Section 302 IPC:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of the deceased, with the High Court upholding the conviction. The incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel when the deceased objected to the appellant hitting his dog. The appellant, along with two others, assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death.

2. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC:
The appellant argued that his case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The Court found merit in this contention for three reasons:
- No premeditation or motive to commit the offence.
- The weapon used was not lethal, and there was no second blow after the deceased fell.
- The appellant's actions and words indicated an intention to belabour rather than kill.

3. Determination of Appropriate Conviction under Section 304 Part I or II IPC:
The Court examined whether the appellant's act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or II IPC. It was concluded that:
- The appellant did not have the intention to kill but had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death.
- The case fell under Section 304 Part II IPC, as the appellant inflicted a single injury with knowledge of its potential fatality.

4. Consideration of Compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.:
The Court highlighted the importance of Section 357 Cr.P.C., which empowers courts to award compensation to victims. It emphasized that courts have a duty to apply their mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case. The judgments under appeal did not address this aspect, reflecting a neglect of statutory provisions. The Court reiterated the need for courts to consider compensation and record reasons for awarding or refusing it.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the appellant's conviction was modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, with a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment. The fine and default sentence remained unaltered. The Court directed the Registrars General of the High Courts to circulate the order among judges handling criminal trials and appeals.