Miscarriage of justice if differences between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder are overlooked: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently highlighted the importance of assessing the difference between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder in criminal cases [Gopi v State of Kerala]..A division bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and CS Sudha said that disregarding the legal distinction between the two offences, which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), would lead to the miscarriage of justice."It is trite that if the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is overlooked, it would result in miscarriage of justice," the bench stated. .The Court made the observation while dealing with a criminal appeal. The appeal was moved by one Gopi who was accused of killing a fellow labourer with whom he had some animosity. Gopi is alleged to have hit the deceased man on the face and legs with a rod, thereby causing his death. Gopi was subsequently convicted by a sessions court for murder, which is punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.In his criminal case appeal before the High Court, Gopi contended that even if the proven facts were considered, it would, at the most, amount only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 of the IPC..To consider whether this argument would hold, the Court recalled that in an order it had passed on August 1, it had explained the difference between the two offences and indicated the procedure to be followed for deciding the question of whether a case would qualify as a case of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court explained that the question can be decided in three stages.The first stage would be to examine whether the accused did an act which caused the death of another. The second stage is to check whether such an act amounted to 'culpable homicide' as defined under Section 299, IPC. If the answer to this second query is also affirmative, then only would the third stage arise, where the Court should examine if the case falls under any of the four clauses under Section 300 of the IPC (dealing with the definition of murder)."If the answer to this question (at the third stage) is in the negative, the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable," the Court elaborated. .With these principles in mind, the Court analysed the facts of the present case. It noted that none of the injuries were on vital parts of the body, that the weapon used was only a wooden rod, and that the injuries caused were ones that would not ordinarily result in death. Therefore, Court altered the Gopi's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It also held that the 7 years that Gopi had already spent behind bars would be sufficient punishment..Gopi was represented by advocate Dhanya P Ashokan. The State was represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Alex M Thombra. .[Read Judgment]