'No Premeditation': Gujarat HC Overturns Murder Conviction Of Two Who Caused Fatal Injuries From Iron Strips, Convicts For Culpable Homicide

The Gujarat High Court overturned the murder conviction of two men to culpable homicide not amounting murder, after noting that the facts of the case the ingredients of the offence of murder under the IPC were not made out.

In doing so a division bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and and Justice S.V. Pinto reiterated the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder which has been established by the Supreme Court in Anbazahagan vs The State Represented By The Inspector of Police that laid down principles and provided framework regarding the difference between the offences. 

The appeal was filed against the conviction of the appellants for the offence of murder, wherein they were sentenced to life imprisonment (simple) by the Sessions Court.

Applying the principles the division bench said:

• Intention and Knowledge: The key to determine the offence is the intention or knowledge of the accused person. The High Court observed that the act of the accused persons was not premediated though the act led to death. The appellants used the weapon already present in the scene during the time of quarrel shows lack of intent.
• Nature of the Incident: The incident was sudden and not conspired. The High Court noted that the prosecution did not establish that the appellants were armed with weapon prior to the incident.
• Application of Exceptions under the Sections 300 IPC: The Division bench further noted that the appellants had the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death but no guilty intent to kill. Hence, lack of mens rea.
• Gravity of the Injury: The Court found that the appellants did not act with planning or guilty intention and the weapon used to assault the deceased was iron rods that caused fatal head injuries resulting to hemorrhage that led to death of the deceased.

Relying on the same, the division bench then observed “For the reasons recorded above, we have no hesitation to hold that in the facts of the present case, the ingredients of murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC are not established and the act of the appellants would fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.”

The incident took place at Yamuna Proteins Mills in 2016, where the appellants, the deceased and the complainant worked and resided in the employe's quarters. While they were playing cards in the evening during the Diwali festival, they had a verbal quarrel that led the appellants and a child in conflict with law (CCL) attacked the deceased with iron strip who sustained serious injuries on his head, hands and other parts of his body and when the complainant tried to intervene to save the deceased, one of the appellants assaulted him leading to injuries on his right hand. The appellants then ran away leaving the deceased injured and bleeding in the room with the complainant. The complainant then took the deceased to a hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The complainant later, lodged the complaint in the police station.

The appeal was filed against the judgement of the Sessions Court wherein the court convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 504 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by the use of dangerous weapon), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 302 (murder), 114 (punishment of an abettor who is present when the crime they abetted is committed) of IPC and Section 135 (abets the desertion of any officer) of Gujarat Police Act wherein, the appellants were convicted of life imprisonment (simple) and for of Rs 5000 and in default, simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence of murder, simple imprisonment for 3 years for the offence of 324, 326, 114 of the IPC. The Sessions court gave them the benefit of the doubt for some charges and ordered the sentences to run concurrently, with their detention period counted as part of the sentence.

The Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the Sessions Court failed to consider the evidence and has not appreciated the defense of the appellant as one of the appellants received injuries which was not explained by the prosecution that makes the story of the prosecution doubtful and further submitted that the weapons used were found at the crime scene and not recovered from the appellants. He then contended that looking at the evidence, the case would not be made out under 302 (murder) rather it would fall under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) as the incident was the result of sudden quarrel. He lastly urged the court to consider the case as both the appellants were young and about 19 years old at the time of the incident.

The Counsel appearing for the State argued that the Sessions Court has considered and appreciated each and every evidence on record including the eye witness to the incident who testified that the appellants and the minor attacked the deceased when they had a sudden quarrel and the complainant sustained injuries when he tired to intervene and save the deceased. He further submitted that there is no reason to not believe the complainant as the other witness to the incidents also saw the appellants fleeing away from the scene and their presence at the placed of incident was proved by the prosecution. The APP then requested the Court to reject the appeal.

The Court then in the order observed that it has no hesitation to hold that in the facts of the case the ingredients of murder under Section 300 of IPC are not established and the act of the appellants will fall under Section 304 Part II of IPC i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Furthermore, the Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 114 and convicted them under Section 304 Part II of IPC wherein, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight years. The rest of the sentence remained unaltered and with this modification, the appeal was partly allowed.

Case Title: Imrail @Ranu Isarkhan Pathan & Anr. vs The state of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 189