In a murder case, absence of motive and animus indicate punishment, not under Section 302 of IPC but under Section 304 Part I, IPC | judgment

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant who was convicted by learned trial Court under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and confirmed by a judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh for the offence of murder of Sub Inspector

Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,  altered conviction and made it to  Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302 IPC  and also modified  the sentence  to 10 years rigorous imprisonment instead of rigorous imprisonment for life, for causing  death  of Sub Inspector.

 

THE REASONS FOR MODIFICATION FOR SENTENCE.

There was no motive or animus against the deceased.

The appellant did not have any previous quarrel with the deceased.

The act  resulting to death was not pre-meditated.

When the deceased in plain clothes tried to board the truck, the instinctive reaction of the appellant was to resist which resulted the deceased being thrown off the vehicle. Such throwing off the deceased and driving without pausing, appears to have been in the heat of rage.

Upon the deceased falling off from the truck, the appellant drove on which killed him, the prosecution  could not establish intention of the driver/appellant to run over the deceased. 

However when the deceased fell off from the truck, the appellant continued its movement with greater rapidity,  this does not prove that the appellant with deliberate intent, drove over the deceased.

The knowledge that the deceased would fall inside, and the rear side of the truck would go over him, infers that the appellant intended to  cause bodily injury as was likely to cause death.

Therefore on the basis of the above reasoning, it is held by the Court that the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was not appropriate.

Before finding the reasonings for modification of sentence of appellant, the Hon’ble Court considered a one and half century old question “whether in this case a homicide is murder or culpable homicide”.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the previous decisions of the same Court.

On the analysis of two sections, 302 and 304 of IPC, the Court got sight of the use of term “likely” in several places in respect of culpable homicide which the Court says it highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person. And Section 302  which defines murder however refrains from the use of the term “likely” which reveals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused.

 

The court had pertinently pointed out the  important distinction between the two provisions in the case of  State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr 1976 (4) SCC 382   

 

"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, "culpable homicide" is genus and "murder" its specie. All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice- versa. Speaking generally, "culpable homicide" sans "special characteristics of murder", is "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, "culpable homicide of the first degree". This is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as "murder". The second may be termed as "culpable homicide of the second degree". This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is "culpable homicide of the third degree". This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304..

 

The Court also pointed out  the considerations that the Court should weigh, in discerning whether an act is punishable as murder, or culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, that were outlined in the case of  Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444. This court observed that:

 

"29. Therefore, the Court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances;

 

(i) nature of the weapon used;

 

(ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;

 

(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;

 

(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury;

 

(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight;

 

(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation;

 

 (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;

 

(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;

 

(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;

 

(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner;

 

(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.

The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention.”

 

The fact of the case is that the appellant, a driver of truck after breaking a forest  department barrier  and colliding with a motorcycle was  running away. Upon  information received the deceased SI along with posse of policemen positioned on the main road motioned the truck to stop. But instead of applying brakes, the accused  tried speed away. The deceased boarded the truck from left side, immediately the appellant pushed him as a result of which the SI died by  falling off from the truck and run over by the rear wheels of the truck. His body got multiple injuries including ruptured spleen and intestines and his skull had cracked open. After the incident the appellant fled with the truck. He was later caught, arrested and charged with committing murder of SI. The learned trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for deliberate pushing away  running truck over deceased SI.  The appeal against the conviction was rejected by the High Court and confirmed the conviction of the learned trial Court.

Case:

Mohd. Rafiq @Kallu  vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. (Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 2021)

DOJ: 15.09.2021

Also Read: Do death by single blow amounts to conviction under Section 302?