Delhi High Court Modifies Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide, Citing Absence of Premeditation—”Fatal Blow in Drunken Altercation Does Not Constitute Murder”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court modified the appellants’ conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC). The court ruled that the killing was not premeditated but occurred in a sudden altercation while the parties were intoxicated. The appellants were sentenced to the period already undergone in custody, resulting in their immediate release.

The court observed:

“The appellants did not arrive at the scene armed, and their intent was initially to resolve their squabble. The fatal injuries were inflicted in a sudden altercation, indicating absence of premeditation.”

Facts of the Case

1. Incident Overview
   • On August 27, 2013, a dead body was discovered on a bench in Kasturba Gandhi Park, Delhi.
   • The deceased was later identified as Manoj Dixit, a former watchman at a telecom godown, who had been dismissed from employment due to alcohol consumption on duty.
   • Eyewitnesses saw the deceased drinking with the appellants on the night of the incident.
2. Police Investigation & Forensic Findings
   • The police discovered broken beer bottles, bloodstains, and empty alcohol containers at the scene.
   • A wallet with the deceased’s identification was recovered from his clothing.
   • The post-mortem report confirmed multiple injuries, including a deep cut on the throat, which was sufficient to cause death.
   • Forensic reports showed that the blood found on the accused’s clothes matched the DNA of the deceased.
3. Eyewitness Testimonies & “Last Seen Evidence”
   • PW-1 Rahul Kumar Gupta (caretaker at Ganesh Telecom, where the deceased had worked) testified that the deceased came to his godown on August 26, 2013, demanding money, accompanied by Appellant Raju.
   • PW-2, a rickshaw puller, saw the deceased lying on a bench in a pool of blood around midnight and alerted the police.
   • PW-3, Sunil (a local resident), testified that he saw Appellant Mukesh with the deceased’s stolen mobile phone earlier in the evening.
   • PW-11 and PW-13 (shopkeeper & police constable) confirmed that the deceased and the accused were last seen together at a local shop, purchasing alcohol and cigarettes.
   • A beat constable (PW-13) intervened during their drunken argument but did not arrest them, as they assured him it was a personal matter.

Issues Considered by the Court

1. Did the appellants intentionally commit murder under Section 302 IPC?
2. Did the prosecution establish premeditation and motive?
3. Can the “last-seen evidence” and forensic findings alone prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
4. Does the case qualify for reduction to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC?

Petitioners’ (Appellants’) Arguments

1. False Implication
   • The appellants denied involvement and argued that they had been falsely implicated by the police.
   • They claimed the police had fabricated evidence against them.
2. Lack of Premeditation & Motive
   • The appellants’ counsel argued that there was no direct evidence of prior planning or intention to kill.
   • They emphasized that the accused did not carry weapons; instead, the injuries were caused by a broken beer bottle found at the scene.
3. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies
   • The defense pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly the statement of PW-3 regarding the stolen mobile phone.
4. Refusal to Undergo Test Identification Parade (TIP) Cannot Be Used as Sole Proof of Guilt
   • The appellants contended that their refusal to participate in the TIP could not be used as conclusive evidence of guilt.

Respondent’s (Prosecution’s) Arguments

1. Strong “Last Seen Evidence”
   • The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimonies (PW-1, PW-3, PW-11, and PW-13), who stated that the deceased and the accused were last seen together on the night of the murder.
2. Forensic Evidence Proves Guilt
   • The forensic report confirmed that the blood found on Mukesh’s clothes matched the deceased’s DNA.
3. Refusal to Participate in TIP Indicates Consciousness of Guilt
   • The prosecution argued that the accused’s refusal to undergo TIP strengthened the case against them.

Analysis of the Law

Trial Court’s Conviction under Section 302 IPC

The trial court convicted both accused under Section 302 IPC, concluding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on:

1. “Last seen together” evidence.
2. Forensic evidence linking the accused to the deceased’s blood.
3. The refusal of the accused to undergo TIP.

High Court’s Reassessment: Why Murder Conviction Was Modified

The High Court reviewed past precedents and found that:

1. Absence of Premeditation
   • The accused did not arrive at the scene armed.
   • There was no evidence of prior enmity or conspiracy.
   • The fight erupted suddenly over a drunken argument.
2. Use of a Broken Beer Bottle Indicates Sudden Provocation
   • The injuries were caused by a glass bottle, not a pre-planned weapon.
   • The fatal throat injury appeared to be inflicted impulsively rather than deliberately.
3. Drunkenness of Both the Accused and the Deceased
   • The forensic report confirmed that the deceased had high levels of alcohol in his system.
   • This suggested that the altercation was not a calculated murder but a drunken fight that escalated uncontrollably.
4. Legal Precedents Supporting Reduction to Section 304 IPC
   • State of U.P. v. Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336 – If a death occurs due to a sudden quarrel, it does not constitute murder.
   • Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 796 – Courts should consider whether the accused acted impulsively in a fit of rage.
   • Vijay v. State (2025) – Convictions should differentiate between intentional murder and a spontaneous fight that turns fatal.

Final Conclusion & Sentence

• The court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
• The appellants were sentenced to the period already undergone (over 5 years).
• They were ordered to be released immediately.

Implications of the Judgment

1. “Last-seen evidence” alone is not sufficient for a murder conviction unless supported by clear intent.
2. Spontaneous fights, especially under intoxication, may warrant conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
3. Refusal to undergo a TIP is not conclusive proof of guilt.
4. Forensic evidence must be examined in the context of motive and intent.

This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between intentional murder and a spontaneous act of violence during an intoxicated altercation.

Also Read – Supreme Court of India: Mandatory Prior Approval from CCI for Resolution Plans Containing Combinations – “A Resolution Plan That Contravenes Provisions of Law Cannot Be Approved”