On 6th January 2024 the Supreme Court ruled that there was not enough evidence to conclude that a man and the other three co-accused had the same intention to commit murder and as a result, the man was found not guilty of the crime. However, the court pronounced him liable for a culpable homicide that did not qualify as murder because, unlike the other three perpetrators, he used a stone rather than an axe and hence changed his conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
They were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC by a trial court and were awarded life sentences in prison, which was upheld by the Telangana High Court. Shockingly, the culprits were acquitted in the first round of the 2007 trial by the High Court. The Supreme Court then remanded the case for more review following an appeal. Afterwards, the conviction and life sentence handed down by the trial court were subsequently upheld by the High Court.
While acknowledging the verdict of the High Court and trial court as well as the life sentence imposed upon three of the accused, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and P S Narasimha of the Supreme Court in response to the four accused’s appeal amended the conviction and sentence given to one of them and sentenced him to only 10 years behind bars.
The bench conveyed, “We have given our anxious consideration and have scrutinised the evidence of all the eyewitnesses in detail. We are in full agreement with the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court. Their analysis and conclusions are based on a correct appreciation of evidence and law. However, there is one aspect which stands out in the analysis of the Trial Court and the High Court, and that pertains to the conclusion on the culpability of A-3 for murder.”
The court clarified that the role of the third accused was not the focus of the prosecution, defence or even the courts. The third accused was not proven to have had the intention of killing the deceased either by oral or written evidence. According to the apex court, the trial court and the High Court automatically inferred guilt from the third accused just because of his proximity to the crime site and his kinship ties to the other accused.
It noted, “A reading of the judgment and order passed by the Trial, as well as the High Court, would indicate that neither the prosecution or defence nor the court, have focussed on the role of A-3 as evidenced by the oral and documentary evidence. There is nothing to attribute A-3 with the intent to murder the deceased. In fact, both the Courts have mechanically drawn an inference against A-3 under Section 34 of the Act merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused.”
The top court pointed out every eyewitness testified unequivocally that A-1 used an axe to attack the deceased, following which A-2 and A-4 took possession of the weapon. “Considering the statements of the eye-witnesses, coupled with the post-mortem report, it is not possible to contend that A-3 would have had the intention to commit the murder of the deceased and as such, he cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC.”
The court further emphasised that A-3 and the other defendants were deemed culpable under Section 302 under Section 34 without the Trial Court or the High Court having examined the facts against them. It was stated that there were two distinct reasons why A-3’s participation in the crime was not intended, as revealed by the totality of the facts. First off, A-3 never utilised the axe, in contrast to the other accused who all grabbed A1’s axe and used it to carry out their assault. Second, A-3 was only holding a stone, in fact, based on some witnesses, he merely threatened if they attempted to thwart the attack.
The court observed, “Under these circumstances, we hold that A-3 did not share a common intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Even though A-3 might not have had the common intention to commit the murder, nevertheless, his participation in the assault and the wielding of the stone certainly makes him culpable for the offence that he has committed. While we acquit A-3 of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, he is liable for the offence under 304 Part II IPC.”
It added, “It is not the case of the prosecution that A-3 was along with the other accused while the deceased was dragged to the house. The deposition would reveal that after the other accused assaulted the deceased with a sword, A-3 came thereafter and assaulted the deceased with a stone lying there. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has not been in a position to establish that A-3 shared the common intention with the other accused to cause the murder of the deceased.”
The bench further highlighted that in the past, the court had taken into account certain factors to commute a sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC, including the absence of medical evidence to establish whether each act or injury was individually sufficient to cause death, a single blow to the head with a hammer, and the lack of convincing testimony from eyewitnesses regarding the accused’s shared intention to commit murder. Thus, taking into account the part that A-3 had played, the bench declared him guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to ten years in prison.
Background of the case
The wife of one of the four accused parties lost to the deceased’s sister in a Telangana Gram Panchayat election in 2001 which generated resentment and eventually culminated in the murder. The deceased was attacked by the four accused using a knife, axe, sword and stone causing extensive bleeding wounds that resulted in the victim’s immediate death.
