Section 302 IPC| Circumstances From Which Intention To Cause Death Can Be Gathered: Supreme Court Explains

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court discussed the circumstances which can be used to infer if there was an intention to cause death in a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna was considering the State of Uttarakhand's appeal challenging High Court's order setting aside the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and seeking restoration of the order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

In this case, the Bench noted that in Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444,  it was observed and held by the Court that 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 judgmental also referred to precedents which held that the help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused : (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed.

Factual Background

Applying the principles to the fact of the instant case, the Court held that the High Court erred in holding that the offence was not murder and was only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

An incident where accused attacked the deceased at midnight and continued to chase him and gave several blows cannot be said to be result of 'sudden fight in the heat of passion' and would not fall under Fourth exception to Section 300 IPC, the Supreme Court has said.

 The Bench observed that the High Court while believing the evidence of all the eyewitnesses held that culpable homicide did not amount to murder, solely on the ground that it is not a cold-blooded murder; rather it is a sudden fight which ensued in the heat of passion between the two; as a result of a sudden quarrel in the marriage ceremony.

The High Court had also observed that the weapon used was a rough piece of wood and therefore it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused to kill and/or commit the murder of the deceased and therefore the case would fall under the Fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. The High Court had therefore altered the finding of murder to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and converted the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

The Bench has held that the High Court has erred in observing and accepting the case on behalf of the accused that the incident had taken place due to a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel in the mehendi ceremony.

The Bench noted that two incidents of altercation happened between the accused and the deceased. The first incident of altercation between the accused and the deceased was at the place of mehendi ceremony. At that time, due to the intervention of the villagers, the matter did not proceed further. Thereafter, the second incident took place at about 12:00 in the night, in which the accused attacked the deceased, gave several blows to the deceased, chased the deceased at about 12:00 in midnight and continued to give blows. Therefore, the second incident cannot be said to be a result of sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.

While noting that the actual incident, being the second one took place after the first incident was over, everybody went to their houses and at 12:00 in the midnight, the Bench has observed that the High Court has erred in observing that the case would fall under the Fourth exception to Section 300 IPC.

The Bench observed that the High Court has not properly appreciated and considered the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased as found in the medical evidence, according to which the main cause of death was injuries sustained by the deceased on his head.

The Bench has set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court altering finding of murder to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and consequently converting the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

In consideration of the grave blows by the accused which resulted into grievous injuries, the Bench has opined that the case would fall under Clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC.

According to clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused:

• If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, 
• If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."

According to the Bench, exception Fourth to Section 300 IPC ought not to have been applied by the High Court at all considering the fact that the main second incident had taken place subsequently at 12:00 in the night, much after the first incident of altercation was over in the mehendi ceremony.

The Bench has held the respondent-accused to be guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC for having killed and/or committed the murder of the deceased and has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment has been restored.

Case Title: The State of Uttarakhand vs Sachendra Singh Rawat

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131