Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of  Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria upheld the conviction of an accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder arising from a 1992 village clash, but reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, citing his advanced age of over 80 years. The Court sustained the finding that the appellant struck the deceased on the head with a lathi during a confrontation that followed a quarrel between their sons, after which the injured man died while receiving treatment. While maintaining the conviction as altered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Bench dismissed the appeal subject to substituting the imposed prison term with time served.

On 10 December 1992 around 6 pm in a village in Madhya Pradesh, a quarrel between the sons of the two sides led the deceased to go to the accused’s house to complain about an alleged beating. The prosecution version was that several persons gathered there, some carrying axes and others lathis, and the deceased was assaulted during the confrontation. A report was lodged at the local police station, and offences were initially recorded under rioting and attempt-to-murder provisions; the injured were sent for medical examination. The deceased died on 11 December 1992 while under treatment, following which the case was converted to a murder offence.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Women Dog Feeders To Lodge FIRs, Move High Courts; Declines Relief In Stray Dogs Matter Over ‘Anti-Feeder Vigilantes’ Harassment Claims

A cross-report was also registered the same day on the accused’s complaint against multiple persons from the opposite side, alleging that he was struck on the head and assaulted with a lathi, and that he acted in self-defence during the clash.

At trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, including neighbours and family members of the deceased; three other injured persons were noted but did not testify. The medical evidence included an examination noting lacerated and swelling injuries on the head caused by a hard, blunt object, and a post-mortem noting a parietal bone fracture and hematoma, with death attributed to head injury.

The trial court convicted the accused under murder with unlawful assembly, and related hurt and rioting provisions. In appeal, the High Court altered the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Part II) and imposed a term of imprisonment with fine.

On the nature of the incident and the prosecution theory of collective liability, the Court observed: “the scenario of the offence was one of a free fight.” It stated: “There was a commotion where the anger-filled group of two rival parties attacked each other, and injuries were sustained by both sides.” The Court recorded: “in such circumstances, it is not possible to reason and to conclude that there was a formation of unlawful assembly with common object of causing death.” It added: “The accused persons, including the appellant, could not be said to have acted with common intention along with others.”

On the consequence for the rioting and unlawful assembly charges, the Court stated: “it is accordingly rightly held that they cannot be held guilty jointly under Section 149, IPC, and the charges under Section 148 and 147, IPC were not proved to hold the accused persons, including the appellant, to treat them guilty for those offences.” It then recorded: “At the same time, the kind and nature of the individual act in the commission of the offence would matter, and the guilt or otherwise of the accused would have to be accordingly ascertained and established.”

Turning to the individual act attributed to the appellant, the Court observed: “he with a lathi hit on the head of Ram Singh.” It stated: “The medical evidence suggested that the injuries corroborated and confirmed that there was a single blow with a blunt object on the head of the deceased, which was the cause of his death.” The Court recorded: “The appellant herein also suffered grievous injuries on the head, from the free fight that ensued when the deceased went to the house of the appellant to ask about the assault of his son by the son of the appellant.” It noted the defence version: “it was the defence of the appellant that in the group clash and in the explosive circumstances, he had to act in private defence to use lathi, which caused the injuries on the head of the deceased Ram Singh.”

On the appropriate offence, the Court stated: “The High Court was correct in its approach in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC by assessing the individual role on his part.” It recorded: “Having regard to the evidence on record regarding the role played by the appellant and the injuries caused by him on the head of the deceased by using lathi, he could be presumed to have acted with an intention to cause death or such bodily injury which he knew that it would be of such kind and nature that would cause, in ordinary course, the death of the person to whom it is caused.” It then stated: “However, the degree of the offence in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be said to be partaking the offence of murder under Section 302, but the offence committed would be punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC.”

On premeditation and the inference of knowledge, the Court observed: “it could be legitimately inferred that the appellant acted without any premeditation as such to cause the death of Ram Singh,” and stated: “although in eye of law, having regard to the kind of weapon used and the nature of injury inflicted, which corresponded to the weapon used, knowledge could be inferred in law.” It recorded: “In fact, the appellant suffered serious injuries to his head in the same transaction.”

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Issues Show-Cause Notice To Additional Chief Secretary (Home) For Repeated Non-Compliance With Its Order

On sentencing, the Court noted: “The appellant is more than 80 years of age at present.” It stated: “Since the appellant is an old and aged person, and in the December of his life, it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind the bars again at this stage.” The Court recorded: “The courts are not supposed to be insensitive.” It then stated: “Therefore, in view of the advanced age of the appellant and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, IPC, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to what is already undergone, to be substituted accordingly.”

“The appeal stands dismissed subject to the above modification in the sentence. All interlocutory applications, as may be pending, would not survive in view of disposal of the main Appeal.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Amicus Curiae Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv. Mr. Ritik Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.P. Singh, D.A.G. Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR

Case Title: SHRIKRISHNA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 45
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1533 OF 2011
Bench: Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria