Murder Conviction Reduced to Culpable Homicide: Supreme Court Modifies Life Sentence

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a murder case involving the appellant, Bhagirath, who had been convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) for the fatal assault on the deceased, Bherulal. The case was based on an altercation that escalated into violence, leading to a fatal injury inflicted by the accused. The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-I IPC), reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on August 19, 2005, at around 10:00 p.m., when the deceased, Bherulal, was surrounded by Bhagirath and other accused individuals, namely Mangu, Sangita Bai, Suma Bai, and Ramkunwar. During the altercation, Bhagirath, armed with a farsi (a sharp weapon), struck a blow to the right side of Bherulal’s skull near his ear. When Ramchandra (PW-6) attempted to intervene, he also sustained injuries.

The prosecution charged Bhagirath and others under Sections 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 325 (grievous hurt), and 302 IPC (murder). The Trial Court convicted Bhagirath under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The co-accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly), but their sentences were later overturned by the High Court.

Key Issues Raised

• Did the prosecution establish that Bhagirath intended to commit murder?
• Was the incident a premeditated act or a result of a sudden quarrel?
• Did the trial court err in convicting Bhagirath under Section 302 IPC instead of a lesser charge?
• Should the case fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight without premeditation)?

Arguments of the Petitioner (Bhagirath)

• The appellant argued that the incident was not premeditated but rather a sudden fight that escalated.
• He contended that the fatal blow was inflicted in the heat of the moment and not with an intention to cause death.
• Since only one fatal injury was caused, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was excessive.
• The defense emphasized that the co-accused had already been acquitted, which indicated that the attack was not a planned assault.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh)

• The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-6, an injured eyewitness, who confirmed that Bhagirath struck Bherulal with a farsi on his head.
• The medical evidence corroborated the claim that the injury was severe and led to the victim’s death.
• The prosecution argued that a blow to the head with a sharp weapon indicated an intention to cause death.
• Even if there was no premeditation, the severity of the act warranted a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the case met the criteria for murder under Section 302 IPC or if it fell under an exception to Section 300 IPC. The Court observed:

• The incident occurred as a result of a sudden quarrel, as confirmed by the testimony of PW-6.
• The attack happened at night without prior planning, indicating the absence of premeditation.
• Though the blow was inflicted with a sharp weapon, it was a single strike rather than multiple injuries.
• Under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder applies when death occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation.
• Given these considerations, the offense should be categorized under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

The Court referenced the ruling in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., which emphasized that the testimony of an injured eyewitness holds significant evidentiary value. The presence of injuries on PW-6 further strengthened the prosecution’s case but also indicated the chaotic nature of the altercation.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

• The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC.
• The life imprisonment sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
• The appellant was ordered to be released immediately unless required in any other case.

The judgment concluded:

“The occurrence was in a sudden fight without premeditation. The appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner. The facts of the case attract Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction is modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC, and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for criminal law, particularly in cases involving sudden altercations:

• Distinguishing Murder from Culpable Homicide: The judgment reinforces that not all fatal assaults qualify as murder.
• Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: Courts must assess the presence of premeditation and whether the accused took undue advantage.
• Weight of Eyewitness Testimony: Injured eyewitness accounts hold strong evidentiary value in criminal cases.
• Sentence Reduction Based on Circumstances: In cases of sudden fights, courts may reduce sentences if undue cruelty was not involved.

The ruling sets an important precedent for distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide in cases involving sudden provocation or disputes.

Petitioner Name: Bhagirath.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 23-10-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bhagirath vs State of Madhya Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 23-10-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category