Murder or not? Supreme Court explains factors to determine intention for Section 302 offence

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has thrown light on the factors/ circumstances from which the intention of an accused to cause death of someone can be gathered, in order to determine whether an offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out [State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat]..A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna relied upon the top court's 2006 judgment in Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the Court had held that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of the following, among other, circumstances:nature of the weapon used;whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;the amount of force employed in causing injury;whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight;whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation;whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;whether it was in the heat of passion;whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner;whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.The top court was adjudicating an appeal moved by the State, assailing an order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had reduced the sentence of a murder convict from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment..BackgroundOn November 26, 2014, the respondent-accused and the deceased one Virendra Singh were attending a wedding ceremony, when some altercations took place between the two, but the same was brought to control by people present there.Later in the night, the respondent-accused attacked Singh using a danda and he sustained multiple injuries on his head with a skull fracture and frontal lobe wound on the left side.He later succumbed to injuries on December 5, 2014.Upon the registration of a first information report (FIR) by the wife of the deceased, a chargesheet against the accused for the offence of murder was framed. The trial court relied upon eye witness testimony to convict the accused for murder and sentence him to life imprisonment..Aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court, which reduced the sentence awarded to the accused and held that the instant case is of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.This was on the ground that it was not a cold-blooded murder but a sudden fight that ensued in the heat of passion between the accused and the deceased.The High Court held that the accused did not have any intention to kill and/or commit the murder of the deceased and therefore, the case would fall under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC (murder).Consequently, the High Court reduced the sentence of the accused.Aggrieved, the State moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court..Findings of the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erred in ordering that the case would fall under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC i.e. not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The Court noted that the second incident when the accused had attacked the deceased with a danda, with the deceased running towards his house for the safety of his life but was left unconscious by the accused, cannot be said to be a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel."The second incident had taken place near the house of the deceased and that too after the first incident was over, everybody went to their houses and thereafter at 12:00 in the mid night the second incident had taken place in which the accused gave several blows to the deceased by “Phakadiyat” on the head, thigh etc. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing that the case would fall under Fourth exception to Section 300 IPC," the Supreme Court observed.The top court then highlighted that the High Court had failed to take into consideration the grievous injuries caused to the deceased. It was observed by the Bench that the use of a danda by the accused with tremendous force clearly projected that the act of the accused cannot come under any exception provided in Section 300 of the IPC.The top court, therefore, held that the order passed by the High Court is unsustainable, both on facts as well as on law and restored the conviction and life sentence for murder .Advocate Virendra Rawat argued for the appellant.Advocate Neha Sharma argued for the respondent..[Read Judgment]