In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court altered conviction of an ex-lover charged for Murder to that of Culpable Homicide relying on significance of 'Intention' and 'Knowledge' in determining the nature of the offense.

The Division Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Arvinda Kumar allowed the appeal filed against impugned judgment of Madras High Court and the conviction of the appellant under 302 was altered/converted to one under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Brief Facts of the Case:

The appellant, N. Ramkumar, had appealed against his conviction and sentence for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appeal arose from an incident where the deceased, Sangeetha, was allegedly killed by the appellant. The lower courts convicted the appellant based on the evidence and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The deceased, Sangeetha, was previously in a romantic relationship with the appellant. The prosecution alleged that the deceased had stopped seeing the appellant and had developed a relationship with a neighbor named Sudhakar.  The appellant is said to have entered the deceased's house and confronted her about her relationship with Sudhakar. The prosecution contended that in a fit of rage, the appellant held the deceased by her ears and banged her head against a wall before fleeing the scene. The deceased was admitted to the hospital but died later on.

Initially, the case was registered under less serious charges but was later altered to charges of murder under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for the offences of house trespass (Section 450 IPC) and murder (Section 302 IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and life imprisonment, respectively, with concurrent sentences. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision, concluding that the appellant's actions amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC.

Contention of the Appellant:

The appellant's counsel argued that there was a delay in filing the complaint, which raised doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case. The appellant's counsel also contended that the conviction was primarily based on the testimony of the deceased's mother, whose testimony was inconsistent and not trustworthy. They raised doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's claim that there was blood on the kitchen floor. The appellant's counsel further argued that the prosecution's theory presented in the complaint did not align with the evidence presented during the trial.

Contention of the Respondent:

The prosecution argued that there was no merit in the appellant's claims. They contended that the evidence presented by the prosecution had withstood cross-examination, and the witnesses were credible. The prosecution maintained that the appellant's motive for the crime was his jealousy and anger over the deceased's relationship with another man. They asserted that the High Court correctly affirmed the appellant's conviction.

Observation of the Court:

The Court began by noting that appellant was convicted and sentenced for offenses under Sections 450 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and that the deceased was in love with the appellant. However, their relationship had soured, and she started talking to another person, allegedly the neighbour. The prosecution alleged that one day, the appellant trespassed into Sangeetha's house, had an altercation with her, and in a fit of rage, held her by her ears and dashed her head against the wall. 

The Court noted that the appellant was initially charged under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 294(b), 448, 323, and 506(1), along with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. However, after the death of the deceased, the charges were altered to include Section 302 IPC. The court mentioned the medical evidence presented in the case, particularly the post-mortem report, which indicated that the deceased died of head injuries. There was also a discussion about the nature and location of the injuries. 

The court noting the contention that there was a delay in filing the complaint, and the prosecution's case lacked trustworthiness and that there are contradictions in the testimony of witnesses went on to discussed various legal principles, including the distinction between "culpable homicide" and "murder," and the significance of "intention" and "knowledge" in determining the nature of the offense. It also emphasized the importance of examining the facts and circumstances of each case to determine the appropriate charge.

Decision of the Court:

The court ultimately decided to convert the appellant's sentence under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. This decision is based on the court's analysis of the facts and the absence of premeditation on the part of the appellant. The appellant is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and is to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Case Name: N. Ramkumar Vs. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.2006 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 706 SC

Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com

 

 

 

 

 

Picture Source :