2023 SCC OnLine SC 1129
In the Supreme Court of India
(Before S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.)
N. Ramkumar … Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police … Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2006 of 2023
Decided on September 6, 2023
- BACKGROUND
Intention and knowledge are crucial in criminal law, as they focus on the mental state of the perpetrator. Intention refers to the conscious decision to commit a crime with the knowledge that it is illegal or could cause harm. Knowledge, on the other hand, refers to the awareness of the consequences of one’s actions and the facts that a reasonable person in a similar situation would possess. In a crime, intention and knowledge often go hand in hand but can be complex. The perpetrator’s intention to commit the crime demonstrates their mental state and purpose, while their knowledge of the consequences of their actions establishes their awareness of the harm they may cause. For instance, in murder cases, the accused must have both the intention to cause death and the knowledge that their actions will likely result in death.
- FACTS
The facts in brief which led to the filing of the appeal are as follows:
Sangeetha, the deceased, was in love with the appellant and was dissatisfied with his behaviour and her mother had also warned her. She stopped seeing the appellant and ended her relationship with him and was talking to her neighbour Mr. Sudhakar which agitated him. The appellant trespassed into her house on 19.06.2010 and questioned her behaviour. The prosecution claims that in rage, the appellant held the deceased’s ears and drove her head against the wall and fled away. Her mother and the neighbour admitted her to the hospital, and after three days filed a complaint against the appellant under Sections 294(b),[1] 448,[2] 323,[3] and 506(1)[4] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.[5]
The prosecution claims that a woman under treatment began vomiting blood on June 28, 2010, and died on June 29, 2010. The Investigating Officer changed the charge to Sections 294(b), 448, 323, 506(1) and 302[6] IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act.
The appellant was tried for the offence. Based upon the testimony of the mother of the deceased and the neighbour, learned First Additional District Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 450[7] & 302 IPC. The accused was sentenced of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 450 and sentenced him and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The High Court of Madras affirmed the Sessions Court’s verdict in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2013. The court concluded that the appellant caused the death of the deceased and that the accused’s trespassing on the deceased’s house was for committing the murder. The court also argued that the deceased had given up her love for the accused and developed a relationship with Mr. Sudhakar, leading to a wrathful reaction from the accused. The case falls under Section 300 IPC making the appellant liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this appeal.
- ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the said offence is a Murder or a Culpable Homicide? If Culpable Homicide so punishment to be awarded under which part of Section 304[8] IPC?
- CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
- Arguments by the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argues that the delay in filing the complaint and the prosecution’s theory cannot be considered trustworthy. They argue that the conviction of the accused is based on the sole testimony of the deceased mother, who has contradictions in her testimony and is not trustworthy. The counsel also points out that the deceased mother was against the love affair of her daughter with the accused, revealing an inimical attitude towards the accused. With regard to there being blood in the floor of the kitchen, the statement of the Investigating Officer and PW-5 contradicts the same. The prosecution claims that the accused punched her daughter on the face, who fell on the kitchen slab, but her in her evidence the accused held her ears and dragged her against the wall. The prosecution’s theory is challenged by the non-examination of the driver of the auto rickshaw, and neither the accused’s clothes nor the victim’s were sent for chemical analysis. The counsel also suggests that if the Court affirms the findings, the sentence should be converted to culpable homicide, not murder, as the accused had no knowledge of his act is likely to cause potential death and would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Arguments by the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel supports the impugned order and argues that the prosecution’s evidence has not been challenged and the prosecution witnesses have stood cross-examination. They also argue that the accused, who was in love with the deceased, was unable to comprehend her intimacy with her neighbor Sudhakar and took extreme measures to eliminate the deceased. They believe that the reasons assigned by the High Court while affirming the judgement and sentence awarded by the Sessions Court would not need to be interfered with, and therefore, they have prayed for the appeal’s rejection.
- RATIONALE
The appeal considered herein is partly allowed and to convert the sentence under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II, the facts unraveled during the trial must be considered. Relying upon the available evidence, the single assault by the appellant and the duration of the entire incident, which occurred for about 2-3 minutes, does not infer that he had the intention to kill the deceased. If he had intended to do away with the deceased’s life, he would have prepared and assaulted him with premeditation. Another factor is that the appellant approached the deceased to confront her about her unresolved issues and her friendliness with Mr. Sudhakar, and in this heated exchange, the appellant’s actions could not be inferred as having any intention to take away her life, especially when he was in love with her.
As a result, the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment that he have already endured and will be released immediately.
- DEFECTS OF LAW
The absence of proper distinction between the ‘intent’ and the ‘knowledge’ and the fact that the legislature has used two different terminologies, in the section 304 and awarding separate punishments for an act with an intention or with a knowledge without intent. Thus, according to the section 304 it would be unsafe to treat ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ in equal terms which is actually not the thing is. A defect in Section 304 of the IPC could refer to a flaw or inadequacy in the wording or interpretation of the section. The language used in the section is vague or ambiguous, leading to confusion in its interpretation.
- INFERENCE
The idea which could be inferred from this case is that the intention and knowledge are crucial in criminal law because they focus on the mental state of the perpetrator; and a thin line of distinguish but absence of intention can act as mitigating factor as in the Section 304 of the IPC whereas absence of knowledge cannot.
- CASE LAWS REFERRED
- Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 289
- Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488
- Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444 : AIR 2006 SC 3010
- Pratap Singh @ Pikki v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 7 SCC 424
- Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 8 SCC 228
- Anbazhagan v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police
Name: Apoorva Chandra
College: Aligarh Muslim University Centre, Malappuram
[1] 294. Obscene acts and songs.— Whoever, to the annoyance of others,—
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near any public place,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.
[2] 448. Punishment for house-trespass.—Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
[3] 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
[4] 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc..—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
[5] 4. Penalty for harassment of woman – Whoever commits or participates in or abets harassment of woman in or within the precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theater, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.
[6] 302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
[7] 450. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life.—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
[8] 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend 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.