Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
N. Ramkumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. By Inspector Of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2006 of 2023
Decided on : 06-09-2023
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 300 and 304 – Murder and Culpable homicide – “Culpable homicide” is a genus and “murder” is its species and all “murders” are “culpable homicides, but all “culpable homicides” are not “murders” – Intention of accused must be judged not in light of actual circumstances, but in light of what is supposed to be the circumstances – Knowledge would be one of circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring requisite intent – Where evidence would not disclose that there was any intention to cause death of deceased but it was clear that accused had knowledge that his acts were likely to cause death, accused can be held guilty under second part of Section 304 IPC – In order to bring a case within Part 3 of Section 300 IPC, it must be proved that there was intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which in ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. (Paras 14 and 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 450 – Murder and house trespass – Life sentence – There was no premeditation to cause death or genesis of occurrence and single assault by accused and duration of entire episode, were factors to adjudge intention – Offence can be brought clearly within ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC – Appellant and deceased were in love with each other – Fact that deceased had stopped talking to appellant and she was talking to her neighbour had ignited mind of appellant to be furious about conduct of deceased and he was upset about this change of attitude of deceased – Single assault by appellant coupled with duration of entire period having occurred for about 2-3 minutes would not be sufficient to infer that he had intention to kill deceased – Conviction of appellant under Section 302 of IPC altered/converted to one under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to period already undergone. (Paras 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced him and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. High Court affirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court by arriving at a conclusion that it was the appellant who had caused the injury to deceased resulting in her death and the act of accused in trespassing to the house of the deceased was for committing the murder, had been clearly established.
Findings of Court:
Present appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under 302 is altered/converted to one under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code for altered conviction, the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment to the period already undergone and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Heard.
2. This appeal is at the instance of a Convict-Accused and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Madurai bench of Madras High Court dated 28.10.2015 in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.334 of 2013 whereunder the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the First Additional District Judge (NCR) Tiruchirappalli in Case No.226 of 2010.
3. The facts in brief, shorn of unnecessary details leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
4. The case of the prosecution was that the deceased Sangeetha was in love with the appellant and she was unhappy with the conduct of the appellant and her mother had also warned them in this regard. It is further case of prosecution that deceased stopped seeing the appellant and broke her relationship with the appellant and deceased was talking to her neighbour one Mr. Sudhakar and being agitated with the said turn of events, appellant is said to have trespassed into the house of the deceased on 19.06.2010 at about 10.30 p.m. and questioned her conduct of talking to another person. It is stated by the prosecution that appellant in a fit of rage, held the deceased by her ears and dashed her head against the wall and fled away from the spot. PW-1 and PW-2 had admitted the deceased to the hospital and after three days the complaint was lodged resulting in registration of FIR No.1659 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 448, 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the appellant.
5. It is stated by the prosecution that on 28.06.2010 deceased who was under treatment started vomiting blood and struggled to breathe and expired on 29.06.2010 at 3.30 a.m. On her demise the Investigating Officer (PW-12) altered the charge to one under Sections 294(b), 448, 323, 506(1) IPC, and 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act.
6. The appellant – accused came to be tried for the said offence and on the basis of the testimony of the mother of the deceased (PW-1) and also taking into consideration the deposition of neighbour (PW-2) who claimed to have seen the accused fleeing away from the scene of offence by taking into consideration the attendant circumstance, learned First Additional District Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 450 & 302 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 450 and sentenced him and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
7. The legality of the said judgment was questioned before the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.334 of 2013 and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the High Court affirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court by arriving at a conclusion that it was the appellant who had caused the injury to the deceased resulting in her death and the act of accused in trespassing to the house of the deceased was for committing the murder, had been clearly established. It was also opined by the High Court that deceased had given up her love for the accused and she had developed relationship with one Mr. Sudhakar which enraged the accused to wreak vengeance and for this reason he had gone all the way to the house of the deceased with a determination to eliminate her and as such it would fall within the first limb of Section 300 IPC and thus, he was liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this appeal.
8. We have heard the arguments of learned Advocates. It is the contention of Shri M. A. Chinnasamy,
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, ruling that the accused acted impulsively without premeditation, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part I....
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They conno....
The absence of intent to kill and the nature of injuries led to a modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II.
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I due to lack of intent and premeditation.
The court established that culpable homicide can be distinguished from murder based on the presence of intention and premeditation, particularly in cases of sudden provocation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
