Bombay High Court Modifies Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: “Incident Was a Sudden Quarrel Without Premeditation; Prosecution Failed to Prove Murder Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court modified the conviction of the appellant from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The court ruled that the incident was a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, and the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. The court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for the period already undergone—6 years and 17 days—with a fine of ₹5,000, and ordered his release.

---

Facts of the Case

The case revolves around the alleged murder of a man (the deceased) by the appellant, who was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence.

• The Alleged Illicit Relationship: The prosecution claimed that the appellant had an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife.
• The Incident: On the night of September 12, 2017, the deceased returned home late from work and found his wife missing. He went out searching for her.
• Discovery of the Body: When the deceased did not return home, his brother called his phone. The ringtone was heard near the appellant’s house. The deceased’s brother rushed to the location and found him lying with serious injuries.
• Police Investigation: The police recovered a knife allegedly used in the attack, and the appellant’s clothes were found stained with human blood.
• Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report confirmed that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to a lung injury caused by a stabbing.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

---

Issues Before the Court

1. Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed murder?
2. Was the case one of murder (Section 302 IPC) or culpable homicide (Section 304 IPC)?
3. Did the circumstantial evidence provide an unbroken chain leading to the appellant’s guilt?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments (Defense)

The defense challenged the conviction on multiple grounds:

1. Circumstantial Evidence Was Weak:
   • There were no direct eyewitnesses.
   • The entire case relied on circumstantial evidence, which was not sufficient to convict someone for murder.
2. Illicit Relationship Not Proven:
   • The motive of an illicit affair was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
   • No witness testified to having seen any affair between the appellant and the deceased’s wife.
3. The Incident Was a Sudden Fight, Not Premeditated Murder:
   • The appellant had injuries on his body, suggesting a fight, not a one-sided attack.
   • The deceased may have attacked the appellant first, leading to a retaliatory act.
   • The prosecution failed to prove who started the fight.
4. Delay in Recovery of Weapon Casts Doubt on Evidence:
   • The knife was recovered 9 days after the appellant’s arrest, which raised serious doubts about whether it was actually the murder weapon.
   • The forensic report showed human blood on the knife, but it was not conclusively linked to the deceased.
5. Lack of Premeditation:
   • There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant planned to kill the deceased in advance.
   • The fight appeared to have happened spontaneously.

The defense relied on several Supreme Court judgments to argue that the prosecution had not conclusively established the chain of circumstances necessary for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

---

Respondent’s Arguments (Prosecution)

The State of Maharashtra argued that the appellant’s conviction should be upheld on the following grounds:

1. Strong Circumstantial Evidence Against the Appellant:
   • The deceased was found dead in front of the appellant’s house, making him the prime suspect.
   • Blood stains were found inside the appellant’s house, proving that the crime occurred there.
2. Appellant Gave a False Explanation for His Injuries:
   • The appellant had injuries, but he falsely claimed that he had fallen from a motorcycle.
   • This falsehood suggested that he had something to hide.
3. Mobile Call Records Indicated Connection:
   • The call records showed multiple phone calls between the appellant and the deceased’s wife, supporting the motive theory.
4. Recovery of the Murder Weapon and Blood-Stained Clothes:
   • The appellant’s clothes had human blood stains.
   • The knife was recovered and contained human blood, linking it to the crime.

The prosecution argued that the trial court correctly convicted the appellant for murder.

---

Analysis of the Law

This case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, meaning the prosecution needed to establish an unbroken chain of events that led to the only possible inference of guilt.

The Supreme Court’s five principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) were relevant:

1. The circumstances must be fully established.
2. They must be consistent with the guilt of the accused.
3. They must be conclusive in nature and exclude all other hypotheses.
4. The chain of evidence must be complete and must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court noted that some key gaps in evidence (such as the delayed discovery of the knife and the lack of direct proof of motive) weakened the prosecution’s case for murder.

---

Precedent Analysis

The High Court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments, including:

1. Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v. Public Prosecutor (2004) – Weak circumstantial evidence leads to acquittal.
2. Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra (2008) – Murder conviction reversed when illicit relations were not proved.
3. Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar (2021) – The chain of evidence must be complete to convict.
4. Surendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) – Prosecution must prove its case beyond doubt.

---

Court’s Reasoning

The Bombay High Court ruled that the case fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC:

“Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Key findings:

• The incident was a sudden fight.
• The appellant also suffered injuries.
• There was no pre-planning or cruelty.

Thus, the court modified the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II IPC).

---

Conclusion

The High Court modified the conviction and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment already undergone (6 years, 17 days) and a fine of ₹5,000. Since the fine was already deposited, the appellant was ordered to be released immediately.

---

Implications of the Judgment

1. Strengthens the Distinction Between Murder and Culpable Homicide – The ruling reinforces that sudden fights do not always amount to murder.
2. Prosecution Must Prove Every Link in Circumstantial Cases – Courts must ensure that all links in the chain of evidence are established before convicting for murder.
3. False Explanations Can’t Substitute for Proof – Even if an accused gives a false explanation, the prosecution still must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Delayed Discovery of Evidence Weakens the Case – The 9-day delay in recovering the knife raised serious doubts about its evidentiary value.

This judgment sets an important precedent on when culpable homicide applies instead of murder.

Also Read – Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under SC-ST Act: “Alleged Offence Did Not Take Place in Public View, Essential Ingredients Not Met; Abuse Inside Office Chamber Does Not Satisfy Legal Requirements for FIR”