Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide; Allows Appeal Citing “with knowledge but Without Intention To Cause Death” Under Section 304 Part I IPC
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria modified the appellant’s conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I. The Court held that the act of inflicting knife injuries, which later caused the victim’s death due to septicemia, was committed with knowledge but without intention to cause death.
The case originated from a late-night altercation on 12 June 1998 when the appellant quarrelled with his brother. During the incident, the deceased’s nephew intervened and sustained a knife injury. Later that night, the appellant went to the deceased’s house, abused him, and stabbed him. The injured man was hospitalized, discharged, and later readmitted, ultimately dying on 26 June 1998. Initially, offences under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code were registered, and Section 302 was added after the death.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 504 and imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and one year of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction based on the evidence of the deceased’s sister and nephew, corroborated by medical testimony confirming multiple stab injuries.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the death occurred thirteen days later due to infection, arguing absence of premeditation and intent. The Court, after examining the evidence and the provisions under Sections 299, 300, and 304, concluded that the offence amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Court examined the statutory distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, observing that “Section 304, IPC has two parts namely; Section 304 Part I and Section 304 Part II. The distinction between these two Parts of Section 304, IPC is required to be considered having regard to the provisions of Sections 299 and 300, IPC.”
Referring to Kesar Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, the Bench quoted: “The distinguishing feature is the mens rea. What is prerequisite in terms of clause (2) of Section 300 is the knowledge possessed by the offender in regard to the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the intentional harm caused to him is likely to be fatal. Intention to cause death is not an essential ingredient of clause (2).”
It further stated, “Culpable homicide is genus, murder is its specie. The culpable homicide, excluding the special characteristics of murder, would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.” The Court also cited the clarification that “if an injury is inflicted with the knowledge and intention that it is likely to cause death, but with no intention to cause death the offence would fall within the definition of Section 304 Part I; however, if there is no intention to cause such an injury, but there is knowledge that such an injury can cause death, the offence would fall within the definition of Section 304 Part II. Thus, is intention. If intention to cause such an injury as is likely to cause death, is established, the offence would fall under Part I but where no such intention is established and only knowledge that the injury is likely to cause death, it would fall under Part II.”
Assessing the facts in this context, the Court observed that “looking to the act on part of the appellant, it has to be concluded that the accused was liable to be attributed with the knowledge that the injuries which he was to inflict by using the weapon in hand, would be sufficient to result into death in ordinary course.”
The Bench recorded that “the sequence of incident highlights that there was an altercation involving the nephew of the appellant and the deceased in the evening time and subsequently in the night at around 10 p.m., the appellant went to the house of the accused where he started abusing the deceased and ultimately assaulted him to inflict the injuries with knife. There was an element of impulse, anger and self-provocation on part of the appellant.”
It held that “it would not be correct to presume or view in respect of the conduct on part of the appellant that the appellant acted with premeditation to kill or that he acted in assailing the deceased with an intention to cause death.” The Court stated that “the degree of the offence committed could not be said to be partaking the act of murder as defined under Section 300, IPC, since it could be concluded that the intention to cause death was missing.”
Finally, it recorded that “the attack by the appellant remained with the knowledge but without intention to cause death. Admittedly, the death of the deceased was after 13 days. Not only that he died while under treatment in the hospital but he had developed septic conditions in the injuries suffered by him. The cause of death was medically identified as ‘Septicemia’.”
The Court directed: “This Court is of the view that the conviction of the appellant deserves to be converted from under Section 302, IPC to under Section 304 Part I, IPC. The act on part of the appellant has to be treated as ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ falling under Section 304 Part I, IPC. This Court holds accordingly.”
“The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, IPC is set aside and the same is converted into one under Section 304 Part I, IPC. The sentence of 14 years already undergone by the appellant shall be treated as sufficient and subserve the interest of justice. The bail bond of the appellant furnished to the Trial Court shall stand discharged.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Manju Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Case Title: Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar v. State of Gujarat
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1302
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2014
Bench: Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria
