Rampal Singh v. State of U.P.

(2012) 8 SCC 289

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 2114 of 2009
Decided: 24 July 2012
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla (judgment by Swatanter Kumar, J.)
Citation: (2012) 8 SCC 289
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 299, s. 300 and s. 304 Part I and Part II (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 100, s. 101 and s. 105)

Headnote

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder · IPC s. 304 Part I and Part II (BNS s. 105) · Distinction between the two Parts of s. 304 · Principle of exclusion · Grave and sudden provocation

The case, in the Court's words

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 15th May, 2007. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri awarding life imprisonment to the appellant Rampal Singh for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [para 1]

Held

Thus, where the act committed is done with the clear intention to kill the other person, it will be a murder within the meaning of Section 300 of the Code and punishable under Section 302 of the Code but where the act is done on grave and sudden provocation which is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender himself, the offence would fall under the exceptions to Section 300 of the Code and is punishable under Section 304 of the Code. [para 20]
There are two apparent distinctions, one in relation to the punishment while other is founded on the intention of causing that act, without any intention but with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. It is neither advisable nor possible to state any straight-jacket formula that would be universally applicable to all cases for such determination. Every case essentially must be decided on its own merits. [para 21]
As we have already discussed, classification of an offence into either Part of Section 304 is primarily a matter of fact. This would have to be decided with reference to the nature of the offence, intention of the offender, weapon used, the place and nature of the injuries, existence of pre-meditated mind, the persons participating [...] in the commission of the crime and to some extent the motive for commission of the crime. The evidence led by the parties with reference to all these circumstances greatly helps the court in coming to a final conclusion as to under which penal provision of the Code the accused is liable to be punished. [para 23]
This can also be decided from another point of view, i.e., by applying the ‘principle of exclusion’. This principle could be applied while taking recourse to a two-stage process of determination. Firstly, the Court may record a preliminary finding if the accused had committed an offence punishable under the substantive provisions of Section 302 of the Code, that is, ‘culpable homicide amounting to murder’. Then secondly, it may proceed to examine if the case fell in any of the exceptions detailed in Section 300 of the Code. [para 23]
Thus, the present is not a case of knowledge simplicitor but that of intention ex facie. In the case of Aradadi Ramudu @ Aggiramudu vs. State, through Inspector of Police [(2012) 5 SCC 134], this Court also took the view that for modification of sentence from Section 302 of the Code to Part II of Section 304 of the Code, not only should there be an absence of the intention to cause death but also an absence of intention to cause such bodily injury that in the ordinary course of things is likely to cause death. [para 30]

Result

In view of the above discussion, we partially accept this appeal and alter the offence that the appellant has been held guilty of, from that under Section 302 of the Code to the one under Section 304 Part I of the Code. [para 31]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Cited by later Supreme Court judgments for the genus-and-species relation of culpable homicide and murder, including Anbazhagan v. State (2023) and N. Ramkumar v. State (2023). The punishment ranges quoted in para 19 are those of the IPC and differ from BNS s. 105.

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-105/02 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.