The Supreme Court reclassified a 1986 triple homicide case from murder to culpable homicide, observing that knowing an act could cause death does not prove intent to kill. The accused, having served over 12 years, can now be released immediately.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has revised the conviction of four appellants in a 1986 triple homicide case, changing it from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
The Court concluded that while the accused were aware that their actions could potentially cause death, there was no evidence to prove an “intention to kill.”
The appeal challenged a 2013 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the 1989 conviction and life sentence imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karvi (Banda).
The case dates back to August 6, 1986, when the complainant, Ram Gopal (PW-1), accompanied by his father Ram Avtar and uncles Namo Shankar and Girija Shankar, went to Baruahaar Ghat to measure agricultural fields for partition.
There, they were confronted by the accused appellants—Raghav Prashad, Prem Shankar, Dayanidhi, and the late Ram Naresh. According to the prosecution, the accused, who had been hiding, came out and engaged in an altercation with the complainant’s family over the land measurement.
Following the dispute, the accused attacked Ram Avtar and Namo Shankar and Girija Shankar with pikes, sticks, and spears.
An FIR was initially registered under Sections 307 and 308 read with Section 34 of IPC. The injured were admitted to Karvi Hospital, where Ram Avtar and Namo Shankar died the same day, while Girija Shankar passed away while being transferred to a hospital in Allahabad.
The charge was subsequently amended to Section 302 IPC, and post-mortem reports confirmed several ante-mortem injuries and fractures on the deceased.
The Trial Court in Karvi (Banda), in its judgment dated November 8, 1989, found the accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction on July 4, 2013, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, representing the appellants, argued that the prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimony of PW-1, who was a relative of the deceased.
The Supreme Court bench first considered the reliability of PW-1’s testimony. The Court stated that it found
“no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court that it was the accused appellants who caused the death of Ram Shankar, Namo Shankar and Girija Shankar.”
However, the Court focused on whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable.
The Court analyzed the nature of the attack and the accused’s intent. A crucial observation from PW-1’s testimony noted that
“even though the accused appellants were having sharp weapons (pike, spear, etc.), they had only used the blunt side of the said weapons.”
This finding was supported by medical evidence, which
“would also show that all the three deceased persons had lacerated and contused wounds only and there were no incised wounds.”
Considering the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the essential element of intention to cause death was absent.
In its judgment, the Court clearly stated,
“We find that though the accused persons could be said to have the knowledge that the injuries would cause death of the deceased, there is no material on record to show that they had the intention to kill them.”
The Court also highlighted the pre-existing dispute over land, noting,
“It is further to be noted that PW-1 had himself deposed that there was prior enmity between the Appellant No. 1- Raghav Prashad and deceased Ram Avtar over the measurement of agricultural fields.”
Based on this analysis, the Supreme Court concluded,
“We, therefore, find that in the facts of the present case, the conviction under Section 302 IPC would not be tenable and is liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC.”
The appeal was partly allowed, and the conviction was modified. Considering that the appellants had already served over 12 years in prison, the Court held that the sentence already undergone would “subserve the interest of justice” and directed that the appellants be released immediately if they were not required in any other case.
This judgment clarifies the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing that knowledge of the possibility of death is not the same as an actual intent to kill, and reinforces the importance of intent in determining the severity of criminal liability.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Prashant Kishor
