Overlooking Difference Between Murder And Culpable Homicide Could Lead To Miscarriage Of Justice: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently emphasised the objective nature of determining the legal distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, unrelated to the offender's intention.

A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha added that neglecting the difference between the two can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

"It is trite that if the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is overlooked, it would result in miscarriage of justice."

The appeal was filed by an accused who was alleged to have fatally assaulted the deceased due to previous enmity. He allegedly used a casuarina rod to strike the victim, causing injuries that led to their death. After the trial, the Sessions Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. Aggrieved by this, he moved the High Court challenging the decision of the Sessions Court. 

State Brief Advocate Dhanya P Ashokan appeared for the accused while the Senior Public Prosecutor Alex M Thombra represented the State in the matter. 

The primary issue before the Court was whether the death of the victim was homicidal. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination testified that the cause of death was blunt injuries sustained to the face and lower limbs and affirmed that these injuries were sufficient to cause death. This evidence established that the case was indeed a homicide.

The Bench then observed that in determining whether the proven facts establish the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, a three-stage approach should be followed.

The first stage involves establishing a causal connection between the accused's act and the victim's death. If this connection is established, the court proceeds to the second stage, where it considers whether the act amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299. If not, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304.

The Bench evaluated whether the accused's actions amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The distinction hinged on whether the injuries intended by the accused were likely to cause death or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

There was evidence suggesting a motive, with witnesses testifying that the accused and the deceased had a history of altercations. However, this evidence alone did not establish the accused's intent to commit murder.

Similarly, the evidence did not suggest that the accused had knowledge of the deceased's health condition likely to be fatal, nor did he foresee the act as imminently dangerous to cause death. However, the established intention to cause bodily injury raises the question of whether the injuries intended were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.

Considering the injuries sustained by the victim, the court found that they were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

"...there were no injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased and that the weapon used was only a wooden rod. The injuries which led to the death are only in the nature of lacerations and contusions. As such, we are of the view that the injuries intended cannot be treated as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In other words, inasmuch as it is found that the act was done with the intention of causing bodily injuries as is likely to cause death, the offence made out is only the offence punishable under Part-I of Section 304 IPC."

Therefore, the Court altered the accused's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part-I of Section 304 IPC.

Considering that the accused had already spent nearly eight years in custody, the period of imprisonment served by the accused was deemed sufficient punishment for the committed offence.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part. 

Case Title: Gopi v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 404

Click Here To Read/Download The Order