The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified the distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, holding that absence of intent to cause death, even in the presence of knowledge that injuries may be fatal, warrants reduction of conviction. The judgment provides critical guidance on the application of mens rea in cases arising from sudden altercations.
The Verdict
The appellants won on appeal. The Chhattisgarh High Court converted their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC, reducing the sentence to time already served. The court held that while the appellants had knowledge that their assault was likely to cause death, there was no evidence of intent to kill, which is essential for murder under Section 302. The relief granted was immediate release from further incarceration, subject to continued bail bond obligations.
Background & Facts
On 15 May 2014, during preparations for a marriage ceremony in Sakti, Chhattisgarh, the two appellants and the deceased, Chhotelal, went to a nearby jungle to collect wood for constructing a mandap. A trivial dispute arose between them, leading to a sudden altercation. The appellants assaulted Chhotelal with their hands, fists, and legs. He sustained grievous injuries and died the next day, on 16 May 2014.
The incident was reported, and an FIR was registered. A post-mortem report, proved by Dr. K.K. Sidar, concluded the cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to asphyxia, hypovolumic shock, and internal hemorrhage, with the nature of death classified as homicidal. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The sole eyewitness, Santosh (PW-6), testified to the assault. The appellants did not examine any witnesses or produce any documents in their defense.
The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appellants appealed, arguing that their actions, though violent, lacked the requisite intent for murder and should be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether the appellants’ actions, resulting in death, constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, requiring proof of intention to cause death, or whether they amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, where the accused had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death but no intention to kill.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the assault occurred in the heat of passion following a trivial quarrel, with no premeditation or intention to cause death. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, emphasizing that Section 302 requires specific intent to kill, which was absent here. He argued that the injuries, though grievous, were inflicted in a moment of anger and did not demonstrate the high degree of culpability required for murder. He urged the court to reduce the conviction to Section 304 Part-II IPC and release the appellants since they had already served over five and a half years.
For the Respondent
The State counsel defended the trial court’s conviction, asserting that the prosecution had established the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He highlighted the eyewitness testimony of Santosh (PW-6), corroborated by the dying declaration of the deceased as recorded by Smt. Gomati Bai (PW-7) and Kirtan Lal (PW-9). He argued that the use of fists and legs in a sustained assault, resulting in fatal internal injuries, demonstrated a reckless disregard for human life sufficient to constitute murder under Section 302 IPC. He contended that conversion to Section 304 Part-II would undermine the gravity of the crime.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench began by affirming the trial court’s finding that the death was homicidal, based on the post-mortem report and the nature of injuries. It then turned to the critical distinction between Sections 302 and 304 Part-II IPC. The court observed that while the appellants’ actions were violent and directly led to death, the circumstances of the incident - arising from a sudden quarrel during a social event - indicated a lack of premeditation or deliberate intent to kill.
"As such, there was no intention on the part of appellants to cause death, but the appellants must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by them is likely to cause death."
The court explicitly applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, which distinguishes between intention (Section 304 Part-I) and knowledge without intention (Section 304 Part-II). The court found that the appellants’ conduct fell squarely within the latter category. The absence of any weapon, the spontaneous nature of the quarrel, and the lack of prior enmity all supported the conclusion that the appellants acted in the heat of passion.
The court rejected the State’s argument that the severity of injuries alone could elevate the offence to murder. It emphasized that the law requires a subjective assessment of the accused’s state of mind, not merely an objective evaluation of the outcome. The court noted that the trial court had erred in conflating the likelihood of death with the intention to cause death.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment provides a clear doctrinal framework for courts dealing with cases of sudden violence resulting in death. Practitioners must now rigorously distinguish between intention and knowledge when arguing for or against murder charges under Section 302 IPC. The ruling reinforces that even in cases of grievous bodily harm leading to death, if the act arises from a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the accused did not intend to kill, Section 304 Part-II IPC is the appropriate charge.
This precedent will be particularly relevant in rural and semi-urban settings where interpersonal altercations during festivals or social gatherings frequently result in fatal outcomes. Prosecutors must now carefully evaluate whether evidence supports a finding of intent, or merely knowledge of likely consequences. Defense counsel can rely on this judgment to argue for reduction of charges where the facts suggest a loss of self-control rather than a deliberate design to kill.
The judgment also underscores that the nature of the weapon or the number of blows is not determinative; the focus must remain on the accused’s mental state at the time of the act. Courts are now expected to conduct a nuanced, fact-specific inquiry into the context of the assault, including the relationship between parties, the provocation, and the immediacy of the response.
