Case Name: Ajmal vs State of Kerala (2022)
The Supreme Court recently reiterated its views on critical factors for determining whether a culpable homicide amounts to murder and distinguishing it from culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In this case, the conviction of three appellants under sections 143, 147, and 148 IPC read with section 149 IPC was overturned by the High Court of Kerala; however, the Trial Court's decision to uphold their conviction and sentence under sections 341, 323, 324, 427, and 302 read with section 34 IPC was upheld.
The appellants asserted that because there was no mens rea to commit murder and no premeditation to do so, the crime would not be exempt from section 300 IPC. The State opposed the appeal, arguing that there was a clear motive to commit murder because, after the initial heated argument, all of the accused came together to form an unlawful assembly solely to commit murder.
SC relied on the case of Mohd. Rafiq v. State of M.P wherein it was held that,
"The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder punishable under section 302 IPC, or culpable homicide, of either description, punishable under section 304 IPC has engaged the attention of courts in this country for over one and a half-century, since the enactment of the IPC; a welter of case law, on this aspect, exists, including perhaps several hundred rulings by this court. The use of the term “likely” in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person. Section 300 IPC which defines murder, however, refrains from the use of the term likely, which reveals the absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused. The accused is sure that his act will cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction between intention and knowledge involved in both crimes. This difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide variance of degree in intention and knowledge among both crimes."
In Pulicherla Nagaraju Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the factors that courts should consider when deciding whether an act is punishable as murder or culpable homicide, which does not amount to murder, were highlighted and are mentioned herein :
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 a 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 cruelly and unusually;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.
Considering the aforementioned observations, the bench determined that the current case qualifies as a culpable homicide that does not constitute murder under section 304 Part II IPC for the following reasons:
(i) There was no pre-meditation of mind to commit murder.
(ii) All the accused were admittedly not armed when they stopped the vehicle of the deceased and his friends and compelled them to alight from the same.
(iii) It was during the verbal altercation at that stage that the three accused picked up the weapon of assault namely, sticks of casuarina tree and a brick from the roadside.
(iv) Single blow was given to the deceased by the accused
(v) The case set up for exhortation to kill the deceased is not proved.
(vi) Both groups consisted of young men.
(vii) The High Court found that there was no unlawful assembly formed with a common object and accordingly had acquitted three other accused and also the present appellants from the charge of unlawful assembly under section 149 IPC.
(viii) The appellants have been convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC.
The bench partially allowed the appeal, stating that the appellants would be eligible for acquittal under section 302 IPC but would be subject to conviction under section 304 Part II IPC. The High Court upheld the remainder of the conviction, and the charges under Sections 341, 323, and 427 read with Section 34 IPC continues to be subject to their original sentences. The bench sentenced them for the time they had already served for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.