In Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2023 -SC- Supreme Court reduces murder sentence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in land dispute case
Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Rajesh Bindal [24-11-2023]

Read Order: Mariappan V. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 4, 2023: The Supreme Court has recently reduced the conviction of an accused in a land dispute-related murder case. The accused, originally convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment, was found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

In the case at hand, the appellant, accused no.1, was alleged to have committed the offence of culpable homicide. The incident involved the murder of an individual named Kolandaippam, stemming from a longstanding land dispute between the deceased and the accused. The trial court, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC, while the other two accused were acquitted. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Madras High Court. The High Court determined that the appellant's actions fell within the third limb of Section 300 IPC. Additionally, the court found that the exceptions to Section 300 IPC did not apply in this instance. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the appellant's culpability, warranting punishment under Section 302 of the IPC.

The division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that the evidence presented in the Trial Court, along with the surrounding facts and circumstances, unmistakably established beyond a reasonable doubt that the wound inflicted by the appellant was the cause of the deceased's death.

However, the bench referred to the judgment of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh [LQ/SC/1989/142], where the court had laid down criteria for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The court stated that for this exception to apply, it was necessary to satisfy four requirements: (i) The act was a result of a sudden fight, (ii) There was no premeditation, (iii) The act was committed in the heat of passion, and (iv) The assailant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner.

The bench observed that if, during a sudden quarrel, a person, in the heat of the moment, picked up a weapon at hand and caused injuries, including one proving fatal, they would be entitled to the benefit of this exception, provided they did not act cruelly.

The bench analysed the circumstances of the present case and emphasized that the appellant's act of stabbing the deceased occurred ‘suddenly’ during a heated verbal argument, rather than as part of a pre-planned, intentional attack with the aim of causing death. While acknowledging previous enmity as a contributing factor to the altercation, the bench concluded that it wasn't the motive for a premeditated fatal assault.

Further, the bench noted that from the outset, as per the prosecution's narrative in the FIR, there was a heated discussion leading to a physical assault driven by anger. The eyewitness accounts also supported this version of events. Interestingly, despite the same evidence, the Trial Court acquitted two co-accused and convicted only the appellant. It was brought to light in the evidence that the appellant caused a single injury, while the other accused inflicted multiple injuries. Nevertheless, the Trial Court chose to acquit the other two accused.

Thus, the division bench concluded that based on the evidence presented, the appellant's act of killing the deceased occurred during a fit of anger in the heat of a passionate verbal quarrel. The Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, indicating that the act could be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Additionally, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the clear intent required for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

As a result, the appeal was partly allowed, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was converted to Section 304 Part-I. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 50,000, payable to the victim's family.