Killing Someone On Sudden Quarrel & Under Involuntary Intoxication Amounts To Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder: Telangana High Court

In a recent case, the Telangana High Court altered the conviction of an accused from punishment of Murder under Section 302 IPC to Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of IPC as from the record of prosecution, the offence was committed in a heat of sudden passion in highly inebriated (involuntary) stage.

A bench of Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy and Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy observed,

"Evidence and fact situation would lead to the one and only irresistible conclusion that A.1 had no knowledge and he is deprived of self-control, as he was in involuntary inebriated condition, in a fit of anger, poured kerosene, pushed the lamp, thereby the deceased sustained burn injuries...would only establish the essentials for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not under Section 302 IPC against A.1."

Brief Facts of the Case

The Criminal Appeal was directed against the judgment in Sessions case wherein the Accused no. 1 (A. 1) was found guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

The prosecution story was that the A.1 was the son of deceased and A. 2 was the brother of deceased. There was a land dispute between the deceased and A. 2 and as such A. 2 developed enmity over the deceased and his family, and time and again instigated A. 1 to kill the deceased by making him addicted to liquor.

One day, A.1 returned to the house at about 23:00 hours and the deceased scolded A.1 for not fetching water and fodder to the bullocks. On that A. 1 picked up quarrel with the deceased stating that he had been insulting and scolding him in public, beat him with hands, pushed him down, thereby deceased collapsed. Thereafter, A.1 poured kerosene on the deceased and set him on fire. The elder son of the deceased, PW 1 registered a case and the trial court found A. 1 guilty of the offence of murder.

The counsel for the appellant/A. 1 contended that as per the dying declaration of the deceased, the accused was in intoxicated condition. Accordingly, if the dying declaration was believed to be true, A. 1 had only inflicted burn injuries on the deceased as he had no intention to kill the deceased and the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was not made out and at most, the offence may fall under Section 304 Part II of IPC (Punishment for Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder).

Finding of the Court

For better appreciation of facts, the relevant portion of dying declaration was extracted:

What is the reason to pour kerosene on you?

I asked money, for that only my younger son poured kerosene on me.

Are you speaking true?

Yes, I am speaking true. At the time Sreenu was in drunken condition.

From the reading of extracted portion, the Court observed that deceased requested A. 1 for money, then, A. 1 who was in drunken state poured kerosene on deceased. Furthermore, it is the case, of the prosecution that on the fateful day, A. 2 instigated A. 1 to consume liquor and after consuming liquor A. 1 returned home and immediately after, this incident occurred.

It was not the case of the prosecution that A. 1 on his own voluntarily inebriated and had an intention to kill the deceased under the guide of intoxication. There was also no evidence of enmity between A. 1 and the deceased and premeditation to cause the death. A. 1 was not in his senses and was deprived of self-control and had no knowledge that his act was likely to cause death of the deceased.

The offence committed may fall under the Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC i.e. culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.

The court relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2000), in which the accused was in a highly inebriated stage when he approached the deceased with demand for sparing her ornaments and as her refusal to oblige, he poured kerosene on her and lit her. But when flames were up, he frantically poured water to save her from flames. The Court held that in absence of knowledge or motive of the accused to kill the deceased, the conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot sustain and altered it to Section 304 Part II of IPC.

In view of the above, the Criminal Appeal was partly allowed and the conviction of A.1 was altered from the offence punishable under Section 302 to offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Case Title : CHITYALA SRINIVAS SRINU v. THE STATE OF A.P. REP., BY ITS PP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 86 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment