Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1285   OF 2013     [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3028 of 2012]

Chenda @ Chanda Ram            … Appellant (s)   

Versus

State of Chhatisgarh … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:   

Leave granted.  

2. ‘Homicide’, as derived from Latin,  literally means the act  

of killing a human being. Under Section 299 of the Indian Penal  

Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), homicide becomes  

culpable when a human being terminates the life of another in a  

blameworthy manner.  Culpability depends on the knowledge,  

motive and the manner of the act of the accused. The offence is  

punishable  under  either  Section  302,  or  Section  304  which  

consists of two parts. In the case before us, we are called upon  

to examine the nature of the offence of culpable homicide for  

which the appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court under  

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal was  

dismissed by the High Court.  

3. It is sad and unfortunate that the epicenter of the matter is  

a simple quarrel on a trivial issue – a cat was chased away by  

the child of the deceased and, in the process, it landed on the  

terrace  of  the  first  accused  where  some gram was  kept  for  

drying.  The  appellant  before  us  is  the  second  accused  who  

inflicted  the  fatal  blow.  The  first  accused  who  initiated  the  

quarrel was, however, acquitted of the charges under Section  

302 read with Section 34, for want of evidence.  

BRIEF FACTS

4. On 26.02.1993 at about 04.00 P.M., one master  Kishore  

Kumar,  son of  the  deceased  Ramgulal,  residing  in  a  remote  

village  Deori  Tola  in  district  Durg,  presently  in  Chhattisgarh  

State, threw a stone on a cat, which, while jumping, landed on  

the terrace of the first accused Anjoriram where he had kept his  

gram. The boy was scolded badly and one Chanda Ram beat  

him  with  a  cane.  Hearing  his  loud  weeping,  his  mother  

Heminbai reached the spot and there was a verbal altercation  

between her  and the  accused.  She told  the  child  to  call  his  

father  Ramgulal.  There was a  scuffle  between Ramgulal  and  

Anjoriram and the appellant-Chenda alias Chanda Ram, in the  

2

Page 3

meanwhile, struck the head of Ramgulal with a tekani (piece of  

wood)  used  for  supporting  bullock  carts.  He  fell  down  

immediately.  The  neighbours  shifted  him  to  his  house,  

thereafter  to  the  District  Hospital  and,  from  there,  to  the  

hospital of the Bhilai Steel Plant at Bilaspur where he died at  

about 08.25 P.M., nearly four hours after the incident. Based on  

the  report  from  the  District  Hospital,  the  case  was  initially  

charged  under  Section  307  read  with  Section  34  and  

afterwards, it was converted to Section 302 read with Section  

34.  Anjoriram is  the  first  accused and the  appellant  Chanda  

Ram, the second. Nineteen witnesses were examined of which  

four  are  eye  witnesses  including  the  wife  and  child  of  the  

deceased.  The  Sessions  Court  entered  a  finding  that  the  

appellant  Chanda  Ram had  the  intention  of  killing  Ramgulal  

when he hit on his head with a weighted tekani due to which he  

suffered serious head injury involving five fractures and, hence,  

he was convicted under Section 302. However, taking note of  

the  age  of  the  accused  as  twenty  three  years  and  other  

circumstances, the appellant  was awarded life  imprisonment.  

The  first  accused  Anjoriram  was  acquitted  for  want  of  any  

evidence in relation to the act leading to the death. In appeal,  

as  per  the  impugned  judgment  dated  18.06.2010,  the  High  

3

Page 4

Court  concurred  with  the  findings of  the  Sessions Court  and  

held that:  

“16. From the overall evidence available on record, we  find that the quarrel started when the stone pelted by  child Kishore Kumar for hitting the cat fell on the terrace  of Anjoriram where gram was kept. While Anjoriram was  engaged in scuffle with Ramgulal, who came much after  the  initial  quarrel  of  beating  of  Kishore  Kumar  and  quarrel with his mother Heminbai, the appellant picked  up a heavy wodden plank use for support of bullock cart  and assault  the deceased on his vital  part  head with  such force that he sustained fracture of both parietal  bones, fracture of nose and fracture of occipital bones  and  died  just  four  hours  after  the  assault.  We  are  unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for  the appellant that the incident occurred as a result of  sudden provocation, without premeditation on the spur  of moment. From the evidence available on record, we  have already pointed out that when the deceased and  co-accused Anjoriram were involved in the scuffle, the  appellant gave a fatal blow on the vital part head of the  deceased  without  any  provocation.  Intention  of  the  appellant is to be gathered from the weapon of offence  used for assault, the force with which and the part on  which the assault was made. In the instant case, the  assault was made by a heavy wooden plank with a force  on  the  vital  part  head  of  the  deceased  resulting  in  multiple fractures of both parietal bones, nose bone and  occipital bones. 17. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the  opinion  that  the  trial  court  has  rightly  convicted  the  appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced  him  for  life  imprisonment.  There  is  no  illegality  or  infirmity  in  the  impugned  judgment.  The  appeal  is  without any substance and deserves to be dismissed.”

5.  It  is  contended  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  that  the  

evidence  if  properly  appreciated  would  lead  to  only  one  

inference,  that  the  appellant  did  not  have  any  intention  to  

4

Page 5

commit murder. There was only a single blow with the stick, the  

same happened to be on the head, it was done on the spur of  

the moment, it was without any premeditation and that it was  

in  the  process  of  a  fight  between  the  parties.  There  is  no  

evidence regarding any previous enmity between the parties  

and, thus, the case would come under Exception 4 of Section  

300 of the Code.  

6. On behalf of the respondent State, it is submitted that on  

the only ground that there was a mere single blow, the offence  

cannot be roped in under Exception 4 since,  admittedly,  the  

fight was not with the accused. It is further contended that the  

fatal blow was on a vital organ, i.e., the head, with great force  

resulting in serious injury to the head causing five fractures, the  

injury  is  sufficient  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  to  cause  

death and, thus, both intention and knowledge are decipherable  

from the  conduct  of  the  accused  appellant  and,  hence,  the  

conviction under Section 302 is to be upheld.  

7. The crucial aspect to be analysed in this case is whether  

the  conduct  of  the  appellant  in  inflicting  the  fatal  blow  is  

intentional  and with  knowledge  or  with  knowledge  only.  The  

medical report given by PW14 shows that the injury caused by  

the weapon used by the appellant is sufficient in the ordinary  

5

Page 6

course of nature to cause death. Hence, we have to analyse the  

evidence  in  the  light  of  Section  300  clause  “Thirdly”  and  

examine  whether  Exception  4  to  Section  300  is  applicable.  

Section 300 “Thirdly” reads as follows:

“300.  Murder.-Except  in  the  cases  hereinafter  excepted,  culpable  homicide  is  murder,  if  the  act by  which the death is caused is done with the intention of  causing death, or-

xxx xxx xxx xxx Thirdly.-If it  is done with the intention of causing  

bodily  injury  to  any  person  and  the  bodily  injury  intended  to  be  inflicted  is  sufficient  in  the  ordinary  course of nature to cause death, or-”

(Emphasis supplied)

Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code, reads as  

follows:

“Exception 4.-Culpable homicide is not murder if it  is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in  the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without  the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in  a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation.-It  is  immaterial  in such cases which  party  offers  the  provocation  or  commits  the  first  assault.”

(Emphasis supplied)

8. If the case falls under Exception 4, then the further inquiry  

should be as to whether the case falls under the first part of  

Section 304 or the second part, which reads as follows:  

6

Page 7

“304-Punishment  for  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to  murder.-Whoever  commits  culpable  homicide not amounting to murder  shall  be punished  with  imprisonment  for  life,  or  imprisonment  of  either  description for a term which may extent to ten years,  and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the  death is caused is done with the intention of causing  death,  or  of causing such bodily injury as is  likely to  cause death,  

or  with  imprisonment  of  either  description  for  a  term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or  with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is  likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause  death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause  death.”  

(Emphasis supplied)

9. All the eye witnesses have narrated the evolution of the  

quarrel  and about the conduct  of the appellant  inflicting the  

injury  with  tekani used  for  supporting  bullock  carts.  PW2-

Heminbai,  wife of deceased, reached the spot on finding her  

child weeping on account of a cane beating by Anjoriram. There  

was  verbal  altercation  between  herself  and  Anjoriram.  She  

asked her son PW5-Kishore Kumar to call her husband Ramgulal  

(deceased). During the scuffle that followed, Chanda Ram hit  

Ramgulal on his head once and she caught hold of Ramgulal  

when he fell down. According to her, there was previous enmity  

with  the  accused  persons.  PW5-child  Kishore  Kumar  is  the  

second eyewitness. He deposed that he had thrown a stone on  

a cat and in the process, it ran away and landed on the roof of  

7

Page 8

the  accused  persons  due  to  which  some  gram  kept  on  the  

terrace fell  down. Infuriated, the appellant Chanda Ram beat  

him on his leg with a cane. He started to weep and his mother  

came to the spot. She questioned the appellant as to why he  

beat the child and she told Kishore Kumar to call his father so as  

to  have  a  final  decision  about  the  ongoing  fights.  He  went  

weeping to his father to call  him to the spot immediately.  A  

scuffle  between the  father  Ramgulal  and Anjoriram followed.  

Anjoriram hit Ramgulal with a screwdriver on his nose while the  

appellant hit Ramgulal on the head with tekani. Resultantly, his  

father fell down. He was shifted to the house and thereafter to  

the hospital. PW9-Latabai, resides adjacent to the house of the  

deceased. She has also stated that during the scuffle between  

Anjoriram and the deceased, it was Chanda Ram who hit the  

head of Ramgulal with the tekani. According to PW11-Kartikram,  

during  the  verbal  altercation  between  the  first  accused  

Anjoriram and  PW2-Heminbai,  Ramgulal  (deceased)  came  to  

the  spot  and  there  was  a  scuffle  between  Anjoriram  and  

Ramgulal.  During  the  scuffle,  the  accused  Chanda  Ram  hit  

Ramgulal  once  on  the  head  with  tekani and  consequently,  

Ramgulal  fell  down.  Anjoriram  also  fell  down,  the  hands  of  

Anjoriram and Ramgulal were tied to each other and it is PW2-

8

Page 9

Heminbai who separated Anjoriram. PW14-Dr. R. N. Pandey who  

conducted  the  autopsy  has  stated  that  he  had  noted  the  

following injuries:

(1) Cut wound on the head of size 4inch x 3inch bone deep. (2) Floated swelling on head and nose and on both the eyes. (3) There was fracture in skull on both sides of cuttlebone, in  

bell up skull and also in the bone of nose. (4) Fractures were also found in the left parietal and occipital  

bone of the Skull, there were total 5 fractures in the skull.

10.  According to Dr. Pandey, those injuries can be caused by  

one blow with the weapon of offence and that the injury was  

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

11. The  landmark  judgment  in  Virsa  Singh vs.  State  of  

Punjab1 draws a distinction between “Thirdly” of Section 300  

and Exception 4 thereunder. The following are the four steps of  

inquiry involved:

i. first, whether bodily injury is present; ii. second, what is the nature of the injury; iii. third,  it  must  be  proved that  there  was an  intention to  

inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it was not  accidental  or  unintentional  or  that  some  other  kind  of  injury was intended; and

iv. fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just  described made up of the three elements set out above  

1 (1958) 1 SCR 1495 9

Page 10

was sufficient  to  cause death  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.

12. In  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu  

Punnayya and Another2, it was held that culpable homicide  

without  the  special  characteristics  of  murder  is  culpable  

homicide not amounting to murder, falling under Section 304 of  

the Code. It was further held that there are three degrees of  

culpable  homicide.  The  first  is  murder  under  Section  300;  

second,  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to  murder  falling  

under  the  first  part  of  Section  304;  and  third  is  culpable  

homicide  not  amounting  to  murder  falling  under  the  second  

part of Section 304. To quote: -

“12.  In  the  scheme  of  the  Penal  Code,  'culpable  homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder'  is  'culpable  homicide'  but  not  vice-versa.  Speaking  generally,  'culpable  homicide'  sans 'special  characteristics  of  murder',  is  'culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to  murder'.  For  the  purpose  of  fixing  punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic  offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees  of culpable homicide. The  first is, what may be called,  ‘culpable  homicide  of  the  first  degree’.  This  is  the  greatest form of culpable homicide which is defined in  Section 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as  'culpable  homicide  of  the  second  degree'.  This  is  punishable  under  the  first  part  of  Section 304.  Then,  there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree’. This is  the  lowest  type  of  culpable  homicide  and  the  punishment provided for it  is, also, the lowest among  the  punishments  provided  for  the  three  grades.  

2 (1976) 4 SCC 382 10

Page 13

Both  the  expressions  “intent”  and  “knowledge”  postulate the existence of a  positive mental  attitude  which is of different degrees. The mental  element in  culpable  homicide  i.e.  mental  attitude  towards  the  consequences  of  conduct  is  one  of  intention  and  knowledge.  If  that  is  caused in  any of the  aforesaid  three circumstances, the offence of culpable homicide  is said to have been committed.

27. Section  300  IPC,  however,  deals  with  murder  although there is no clear definition of murder provided  in Section 300 IPC. It has been repeatedly held by this  Court that culpable homicide is the genus and murder  is species and that all murders are culpable homicide  but not vice versa.

28. Section 300 IPC further provides for the exceptions  which will constitute culpable homicide not amounting  to murder and punishable under Section 304. When and  if there is intent and knowledge, then the same would  be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of  knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and  bodily injury, then the same would be a case of Section  304 Part  II.  The aforesaid  distinction between an  act  amounting  to  murder  and  an  act  not  amounting  to  murder has been brought out in the numerous decisions  of this Court.”

15. In Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana5 after scanning  

all  the previous decisions where the death was caused by a  

single blow, this Court indicated, though not exhaustively, a few  

factors  to  be  taken  into  consideration  while  awarding  the  

sentence. To quote:

“23. These are some factors which are required to be  taken  into consideration before awarding appropriate  sentence  to  the  accused.  These  factors  are  only  illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case  

5 (2009) 15 SCC 635 13

Page 14

has  to  be  seen  from  its  special  perspective.  The  relevant factors are as under:

(a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur  

of the moment; (c) The  intention/knowledge  of  the  accused  while  

inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the  

victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The  age  and  general  health  condition  of  the  

accused; (g) Whether  the  injury  was  caused  without  

premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting  

the injury and the force with which the blow was  inflicted;

(i) The criminal  background and adverse history of  the accused;

(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in  the ordinary course of nature to cause death but  the death was because of shock;

(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against  the accused;

(l) Incident  occurred within  the family  members  or  close relations;

(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after  the incident. Whether the accused had taken the  injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately  to  ensure  that  he/she  gets  proper  medical  treatment?

These are some of the factors which can be taken into  consideration while granting an appropriate sentence  to the accused.

24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only  illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view,  proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the  bounded  obligation  and  duty  of  the  court.  The  endeavour  of  the  court  must  be  to  ensure  that  the  accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words,  sentence  should  be  according  to  the  gravity  of  the  offence. These are some of the relevant factors which  

14

Page 15

are required to be kept in view while convicting and  sentencing the accused.”

16. In the light of the principles which have been discussed  

fairly exhaustively, we have to analyse the factual position as to  

whether  the  appellant  had  the  intention  to  cause  death,  or  

whether he only had the knowledge about the injury which is  

likely to cause death. We have to also analyse the manner in  

which the injury is caused and the provocation for the same.  

There is no evidence in the case that there was previous enmity  

between parties though PW2 has attempted for such a version  

of the case. She has been disbelieved on that account because  

of contradictions within her own statement under Section 161.  

The  available  evidence  would  show  that  there  was  no  

premeditation on the part of the appellant and that it  was a  

case of sudden fight. It has to be noted while appreciating the  

evidence that Ramgulal (deceased) was called by his wife to the  

spot to settle the disputes once for all  and that  the ensuing  

sudden scuffle with the first accused was in the presence of his  

wife. It has come out in the evidence of PW11-Kartikram that  

the  injury  inflicted  by  the  appellant  was  during  the  scuffle  

between the deceased and the first accused Anjoriram and that  

after  the  lone  strike  on  the  head  of  the  deceased  by  the  

appellant,  both the deceased and Anjoriram had fallen down  

15

Page 16

and  it  was  PW2-Heminbai  who  separated  Anjoriram  and  

Ramgulal as they had become entangled with each other. That  

only means that Ramgulal had overpowered Anjoriram or else  

the deceased alone would have fallen down and not the first  

accused  Anjoriram.  The  said  conduct  of  the  deceased  

overpowering Anjoriram during the scuffle was the immediate  

provocation for the appellant to take the weapon, the tekani  

which was available in the vicinity to hit the deceased. There is  

no evidence at all as to whether the appellant intended to hit on  

the head only or elsewhere on the body. The scuffling parties  

being in motion, it could easily have happened that the blow fell  

on  the  head  unintentionally.  No  doubt  the  scuffle  of  the  

deceased was with the Anjoriram but the entire fight was with  

the deceased on one side, and the appellant and other accused  

Anjoriram on the other  side.  It  is  not  required that  the fight  

must be between the main accused and deceased. The fight  

can as well be between two parties, the deceased on one side  

and all the other accused on the other side. There is only one  

hit. There is nothing to show that there was any cruelty involved  

by inflicting any other injury or by any other conduct on the part  

of the appellant so as to hold that the appellant was taking any  

undue advantage of the situation or that he behaved in a cruel  

16

Page 17

or unusual manner. Thus, all the four ingredients required for  

treating the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code  

as stated in  Pappu’s case (supra) are satisfied in the instant  

case.  

17. The next  inquiry is  whether  the offence falls  under  first  

part of Section 304 or the second part. Having regard to the  

parameters indicated in  Gurmukh Singh’s case (supra),  the  

offence  seems  to  fall  under  the  second  part.  There  is  no  

evidence of motive or previous enmity. The incident has taken  

place  on  the  spur  of  the  moment.  There  is  no  evidence  

regarding  the  intention  behind  the  fatal  consequence  of  the  

blow. There was only one blow. The accused is young. There  

was no premeditation. The evolution of the incident would show  

that it was in the midst of a sudden fight. There is no criminal  

background or adverse history of the appellant. It was a trivial  

quarrel among the villagers on account of a simple issue. The  

fatal blow was in the course of a scuffle between two persons.  

There has been no other act of cruelty or unusual conduct  on  

the part  of the appellant.  The deceased was involved in  the  

scuffle in the presence of his wife and he had actually been  

called  upon  by  her  to  the  spot  so  as  to  settle  the  

score  with  the  accused  persons.  The  deceased  had,  in  the  

17

Page 18

scuffle, overpowered the first accused. That first accused was  

acquitted.  Thus, considering all  these aspects,  we are of the  

view that it is a fit case to alter the punishment of imprisonment  

for life to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of  

Rs.50,000/-. Ordered accordingly. Since the deceased has  been  

left with a young widow and one child, the amount of fine thus  

recovered shall be paid as compensation to the widow and the  

child. In the event of the appellant defaulting to pay the fine, he  

shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of two years. In  

case the appellant has already served the term as above, he  

shall  be released forthwith, if  not required to be detained in  

connection with any other case. The appeal is allowed as above.  

……………………….…..…………J.                         (CHANDRAMAULI KR.  

PRASAD)

.………...……..……………………J.                  (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; August 27, 2013.  

18