Menu

ANBAZHAGAN v/s THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2023)

Case Comment, Publications
PARTIES:

TYPE OF CASE:		Appellant: ANBAZHAGAN Respondents: THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2043 OF 2023  (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 9289 of 2019)
COURT:THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DATE:Jul 20, 2023
BENCH:HON’BLE J. B.R. GAVAIHON’BLE J. J.B. PARDIWALAHON’BLE J. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
ADVOCATES ON BEHALF:Appellant: Mr. S. NagamuthuRespondent:  Dr. Joseph Aristotle 

BACKGROUND OF THE INSTANT CASE:

  • The case of Anbazhagan v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police revolves around the death of an individual, the incident took place in Tamil Nadu where the appellant, Anbazhagan, an agriculturist and the deceased, Balasubramaniam were indulged in a long-standing land dispute over easementary rights.
  • During the trial, though a chargesheet was filed for offence of Murder under section 302 India Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 i.e. common intention, also the prosecution built its case around eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence, the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC,1860 instead of Section 302 r.w. Section 34, of IPC,1860.
  • The appellant challenged the verdict, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on April 4, 2019, confirming the conviction and sentencing by the Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal, Now through this appeal, the defence sought to further reduce the culpability by urging the court to reclassify the offense under Section 304 Part II, arguing that the act was committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

  • On October 25, 2015, in the village of Sirukinathupalayam, Tamil Nadu the appellant, Anbazhagan, along with his father, was engaged in harvesting tapioca crops on their land. A lorry was arranged to transport the harvested crop, and the driver attempted to use the disputed pathway to access the field.
  • At approximately 11:00 AM, the deceased, Balasubramaniam, objected to the use of the pathway and confronted the lorry driver. This led to a heated verbal altercation between the deceased and Anbazhagan picked up a ‘Hoe’ (Kalaikottu) a gardening tool and struck Balasubramaniam on the head.
  •  As a result of the blow, the deceased fell unconscious and was taken to the Government Hospital in Velur, later the deceased was transferred to the Government Hospital in Namakkal, and was declared dead at around 5:20 PM.
  • An FIR was lodged against Anbazhagan and his father, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC,1860 at around 7:30 PM. However, the trial court in the year 2017 convicted him under Section 304 Part I of the IPC,1860 and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000 and subsequent one year imprisonment in default of payment of fine. His father was acquitted due to lack of evidence implicating him in the act.
  • Eyewitness testimonies from PW-8 Chidambaram and PW-9 Jeeva were pivotal in establishing the sequence of events. Both witnesses corroborated that the altercation stemmed from the pathway dispute and that the appellant inflicted a single fatal blow on the head of the deceased.
  • The Court heavily relied on the post-mortem examination of Balasubramaniam’s body which was conducted by Dr Anbumalar a Senior Doctor at Namakkal Government District Head Hospital on 26.10.2015 at 2:15 PM, as the Medical evidence presented by PW-18 Dr. Anbumalar, that the head injury was the cause of death, aligned with the prosecution’s case.
  •  As per the Medical evidence, there was bleeding from the ears and nose, and cuts and injury above the left eyebrow, and on the left of the forehead externally. 
  • The frontal skull bone was also fractured on both sides (parietal bones). Internally, the skull bone and its inner lining were torn, and the left temporal bone had a 7.5 cm fracture. 
  • Following the conviction, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Madras, challenging the conviction by the trial court, however the High Court, upheld the trial court’s verdict, affirming that the act fell under Section 304 Part I due to the knowledge factor associated with the appellant’s actions.
  • In the present appeal before the Supreme Court, the Appellant has sought a reconsideration of the categorization of the offense, arguing for a reduction of the sentence by reclassifying the act under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE INSTANT CASE:

  1. whether the actions of the appellant constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC ,1860 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC,1860?
  2. whether the injury caused, is enough to accept that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient to cause death?
  3. whether the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC,1860 should be altered to Section 304 Part I IIPC,1860, emphasizing the need to assess the appellant’s mental state during the incident?

CONTENTIONS:

Contentions by the Appellant:  

  • The appellant contended that the conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC,1860. He emphasized on the fact that he lacks intention to cause death and acted with knowledge that his actions could result in death, which is essential for a conviction under Section 304 Part II of IPC,1860. 
  • The appellant further argued that the actions constituted a lack of Mens Rea to inflict serious bodily injury and thus the case does not fall within Section 300 clause Thirdly of the IPC,1860.  And that the situation leading to the incident did not reflect an intention to kill but was instead an act that resulted in an unfortunate incident given the context of the agricultural dispute that preceded it.
  • The appellant’s Counsel also affirmed that consequence of the act should not automatically imply an intention to kill, as the appellant could only be attributed with knowledge regarding the likelihood of causing injury provided the nature of the weapon used and the circumstances of the encounter between the appellant and the deceased.

Contentions by the Respondents:

  • The respondent counter argued and highlighted that the appellant’s actions demonstrated an intention to inflict serious injury to the respondent which is likely to cause death and thus the case fell within the ambit of Section 304 part I of IPC,1860.  They pointed out that the nature of the weapon used and the manner in which the blow occurred on the head indicated a clear intention to cause significant bodily injury, which substantiated the conviction under Section 304 Part I.
  • The respondent further contended that appellant’s actions met the criteria for having the intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as was likely to result in death and thus He would submit that the case falls within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC,1860 but exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC,1860 was attracted and therefore, both the Trial Court and the High Court correctly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I of the IPC,1860.
  • The respondent emphasized that the sentencing by the Trial Court under section 304 part I, IPC ,1860, which was further upheld by the High Court, adequately reflected the gravity of the offense and the need for a deterrent against such actions, citing the need for justice for the deceased.

RATIO – DECIDENDI:

  1. Differentiating Between Intent and Knowledge:
  • The court, relying on precedents and legal doctrines, has clarified that ‘intent’, originates from ‘archery’, meaning aim, is a mental state inferred from facts, not direct evidence and can be proven through res gestae, prior or subsequent acts, or admissions. Key factors determining intent include the weapon used, injury location, injury nature, and the accused’s opportunity to act. Whereas ‘Knowledge’ denotes a deliberate aim to achieve a particular result, it is an awareness of the likely consequences of an act.  
  • The Supreme Court in Smt. Mathri v. State of Punjab explained that intent implies an active desire for a particular outcome, akin to an archer aiming at a target. Alao in Basdev v. State of Pepsu, the court observed that while intent and knowledge may sometimes overlap, Intention involves a conscious objective to cause harm, knowledge merely signifies awareness that harm may result from one’s actions.
  • Similarly, in Reg. v. Monkhouse, the court held that intention must be inferred from an individual’s acts and circumstances rather than direct evidence. Again, in In re Kudumula Mahanandi Reddi (AIR 1960 AP 141), the court reinforced that knowledge of probable consequences does not automatically translate to intent unless there is clear evidence of a deliberate purpose.
  1. Differentiating Between 299 and 300 of IPC ,1860:
  • The framers of the IPC intentionally differentiated intention and knowledge by assigning separate punishments under Sections 299 and 300. The law acknowledges that while a person may act with knowledge of potential consequences, intent requires a deliberate and purposeful act to achieve a specific result. Section 299 characterizes culpable homicide through three distinct criteria: 
  1. causing death with the intention to kill;
  2. causing bodily injury likely to result in death; and
  3.  committing an act with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. This legal distinction emphasizes intention and knowledge as critical mental states that determine the nature of the offense.
  • The Supreme Court through various judicial precedents frequently has established that while all murders are culpable homicides, not all culpable homicides rise to the level of murder. Section 300 delineates murder as a more severe form of culpable homicide, although it does not provide a clear definition of murder itself. 
  • This differentiation is highlighted in landmark cases, such as Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , which clarifies the hierarchical relationship between these two legal concepts.
  • Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya reiterated this distinction, stating that the code recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide based on the gravity of intent: 
  1. first-degree (murder as defined under Section 300), 
  2. second-degree (culpable homicide under the first part of Section 304), and 
  3. third-degree (culpable homicide under the second part of Section 304). This tiered classification influences sentencing and determinations of culpability.
  • The principles outlined in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab by the court emphasized the importance of not losing sight of the terminology used in the statute to avoid confusion between murder and culpable homicide.
  • And again, in the case of Phulia Tudu v. State of Bihar , the Court highlighted that courts must adhere to the specific language employed in Sections 299 and 300 to make accurate legal classifications, noting that academic distinctions often complicate judicial interpretations.
  1. Differentiating between 300 and 304 of IPC,1860:
  • The key distinction between murder (Section 300 IPC) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC) forms the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anbazhagan’s case. 
  • The Court underlined that the accused’s intention or knowledge at the time of the act is essential to determining the nature of the offense. 
  • Although a single injury may qualify as murder, it is important to determine whether the harm was likely to result in death or was done with the intention to do so. The act qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC if it violates Clause (4) of Section 300 IPC but does not satisfy the threshold of murder. 
  • The evidence in this instance showed knowledge that the act could cause death, but it did not prove intent to kill. The accused’s responsibility was reduced to Section 304 Part II IPC since he used a common agricultural instrument and the attack did not display excessive brutality. 
  • The legal premise that “guilty knowledge” without intent to cause death is punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC,1860 rather than under murder provisions was therefore affirmed by the Court.

INFERENCE:

  • The Supreme Court altered the appellant Anbazhagan’s conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, Initially sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, the punishment was reduced to 5 years.
  • The Court found that while Anbazhagan acted with knowledge that his actions could cause death, evidence showed he used a common agricultural tool (a weed axe), raising doubts about intent. 
  • The Court’s decision reflected a nuanced understanding of the appellant’s mental state and the nature of his actions, ultimately ensuring that the classification of the crime matched the intent and knowledge exhibited during the act. This judgment reinforced legal distinctions between culpable homicide and murder, ensuring the punishment matched the mental state and circumstances.

REFRENCES:

1.https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-guilty-intention-knowledge-section-304-ipc-anbazhagan-vs-state-2023-livelaw-sc-550-233233

2.https://www.supremecourtcases.com/anbazhagan-v-state-represented-by-the-inspector-of-police/

3.https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64b98bcd89d2571cfa28c5cd

4.https://legalvidhiya.com/anbazhagan-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-inspector-of-police/

VIBHOR SHRIVASTAVA, BBALLB (5TH YEAR), AMITY LAW SCHOOL, GWALIOR, AUMP.