| Date of Judgment | 4 August, 1994 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Petitioner | Ramesh Kumar |
| Respondent | State Of Bihar |
| Bench | Anand, A.S. (J) |
| Citation | 1993 AIR 23171994 SCC Supl.(1) 1161193 SCALE (3) 309 |
Facts of the Case:
1. The incident occurred on October 10, 1970, in Village Changel, District Muzaffarpur.
2. Harbansh Narain Lal Das, the father of the appellant, was the victim of the crime.
3. The accused individuals were Ram Briksh Rai, Giani Mandal, Mohinder Baitha, and Kusheshwar Rai (since deceased).
4. Initially, the accused were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302/34 IPC (Indian Penal Code) for the murder of Harbansh Narain Lal Das.
5. The High Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, altering the offense classification based on the circumstances of the case.
6. The appellant, Ramesh Kumar (son of the deceased), appealed the High Court’s alteration of the conviction to the Supreme Court.
7. The main legal dispute was whether the conviction should be for murder (Sections 302/34 IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC).
Issues of the Case
- The primary issue is whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder (Sections 302/34 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC).
- Another critical issue is whether the actions of the accused were intended to cause the death of the deceased or to inflict severe injuries.
Petitioner’s argument
- The appellant argued that the original conviction of the accused under Sections 302/34 IPC for murder was justified based on the circumstances of the case.
- The appellant contended that the assault by the respondents demonstrated a premeditated intention to kill the deceased, emphasizing the severity of the murder.
- The appellant pointed out that the method of “hanging” used in the murder was particularly brutal, further highlighting the need for a murder conviction.
- The appellant emphasized that the accused were armed with a loaded pistol during the incident, underlining their intent to cause harm.
- The appellant argued that the respondents, by using a deadly method like hanging and possessing a loaded firearm, demonstrated a shared common intention to commit the murder.
- The appellant urged that due to the heinous nature of the murder, the respondents should not only have been convicted for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC but also sentenced to capital punishment (death penalty).
Defendant’s arguments
- The defendants argued that the established circumstances did not demonstrate a clear intention on their part to commit murder.
- The defendants emphasized that they did not use the weapons they were armed with during the assault, suggesting their intent was not to cause fatal injuries.
- The defendants pointed to the fact that the injuries inflicted were primarily through kicks and fist blows, which were not intended to cause death, highlighting a lack of murderous intent.
- The defendants highlighted that despite being armed with a loaded firearm, they did not use it during the assault, indicating a lack of a clear intention to kill the deceased.
- The defendants argued that the assault was not premeditated but rather a result of the situation, suggesting a lack of preconceived intent to commit murder.
Judgment of the case
- The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, concurring with the High Court’s alteration and finding that the evidence did not support a murder conviction.
- The Court examined the evidence and concluded that the injuries were not intended to cause death but severe assault. The accused did not use the weapons they were armed with during the assault.
- The injuries causing the death were primarily through kicks and fist blows, and not from the weapons the accused possessed, indicating a lack of murderous intent.
- Despite being armed with a loaded firearm, the accused did not use it during the assault, reinforcing the conclusion that they did not intend to cause death.
- The Court modified the sentence to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,500 on each respondent. In default of payment, an additional six months of imprisonment was prescribed.
- The fine imposed on the respondents was to be paid to the appellant, ensuring compensation.
In conclusion, the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar revolved around the tragic murder of Harbansh Narain Lal Das in 1970. Initially, the accused were convicted of murder under Sections 302/34 IPC by the trial court. However, the High Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, citing a lack of clear intent to commit murder based on the nature of the injuries inflicted.
The appellant, Ramesh Kumar, contested this alteration in the Supreme Court, arguing that the assault on his father indicated a premeditated intent to kill, justifying a murder conviction. However, after a thorough review of the evidence and circumstances, the Supreme Court upheld the modified conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC.
The Court enhanced the sentence to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine on each respondent. The fine amount was to be paid to the appellant as compensation. This case highlighted the importance of intent analysis and the careful consideration of evidence to arrive at a just and balanced judgment that upholds the law while ensuring appropriate consequences for the accused.
Written by ADITYA SINGH, University Of Lucknow an intern under legal vidhiya.
REFERENCES
Written by ADITYA SINGH an intern under legal vidhiya.
