Absence of Intent to Kill and Nature of Injuries Justify Conviction for Culpable Homicide, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Upholds Lesser Charge Under Section 304-II IPC

In a crucial ruling Orissa High Court upheld the conviction of an accused under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while dismissing the State’s appeal seeking enhancement of the charge to murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court ruled that "an assault leading to death does not automatically constitute murder unless there is clear intent to kill. In cases where the accused merely has knowledge that their act may result in death, the conviction must fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder."

Observing that the accused inflicted injuries on non-vital parts of the deceased’s body, indicating no premeditated intent to cause death, the Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s judgment sentencing the accused to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-II IPC. However, considering the appellant's disability and time already served in prison, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

"A Sudden Fight, No Premeditation – No Evidence of Murderous Intent"
The prosecution alleged that on September 9, 1996, the deceased, Jaya Bisoi, had a dispute with the accused over a property issue. During the altercation, Prabhakar Bisoi and his father, Panu Bisoi, attacked Jaya Bisoi with an axe, inflicting multiple injuries on his arms and legs. The victim succumbed to excessive bleeding before receiving medical attention. The prosecution argued that "since the accused used a dangerous weapon, they must have intended to kill the deceased, warranting a conviction under Section 302 IPC."

Rejecting this contention, the Court ruled that "mere use of a weapon is not conclusive proof of murderous intent. The nature and location of the injuries are equally crucial in determining whether the accused intended to cause death." The Court observed that the axe blows were aimed at the deceased’s limbs, not at vital organs such as the chest, head, or abdomen.

"The fact that the accused did not strike a fatal blow to a vital part of the body suggests that the assault was not premeditated with an intention to kill. The law distinguishes between an act done with the knowledge that it may cause death and an act done with the deliberate intent to cause death. In this case, the accused fall within the former category," the Court ruled.

"Dying Declaration Not Sufficient to Prove Murder" – Court Questions Reliability of Witness Testimony
The prosecution relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, claiming that he had named the accused as his assailants. However, the Court found inconsistencies in the statements of PW-7 and PW-8, who testified about the dying declaration.

"It is significant that these witnesses failed to mention the alleged dying declaration in their initial statements to the police. Such contradictions cast serious doubt on whether the deceased actually made any statement before his death. In the absence of corroborative evidence, a dying declaration alone cannot be the sole basis for a conviction under Section 302 IPC," the Court ruled.

The Court further noted that the deceased was engaged in a sudden altercation with the accused at the time of the incident, and there was no history of prior enmity that would suggest a pre-planned attack.

"Intention vs. Knowledge – Why the Conviction Under Section 304-II IPC is Justified"
Analyzing the difference between murder (Section 302 IPC) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC), the Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444, stating that the key distinction lies in intent.

"For an act to be classified as murder, the accused must have intended to cause death or inflicted an injury that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. If the accused merely knew that their act could result in death but did not intend it, the offense falls under Section 304-II IPC," the Court observed.

The Court noted that the post-mortem report indicated that the victim died due to excessive bleeding (hemorrhagic shock) and not due to immediate fatal trauma. Since the accused made no attempt to strike a vital organ or continue the attack after the initial blows, their actions did not reflect an intent to murder.

"The accused inflicted injuries that could disable but not necessarily kill the victim. This strongly supports the conclusion that they did not intend to cause death but acted with knowledge that their assault could result in fatal consequences. The trial court’s conviction under Section 304-II IPC is therefore legally sound," the Court ruled.

"Considering Disability and Time Served, Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone"
One of the accused, Prabhakar Bisoi, submitted that he had developed a 65% locomotor disability due to a medical condition while in prison, which severely restricted his mobility. The Court considered this along with the fact that he had already served a significant portion of his five-year sentence.

"The purpose of criminal sentencing is not just retribution but also rehabilitation. Given that the convict has already served substantial time in prison and is now suffering from a severe disability, further incarceration would not serve the ends of justice. The sentence is therefore modified to the period already undergone," the Court ruled.

Conviction Under Section 304-II IPC Upheld, Appeal for Murder Charge Dismissed
Dismissing the State’s appeal for an enhanced conviction under Section 302 IPC, the Orissa High Court ruled that "the accused had no premeditated intent to kill, and their actions were not so grievous as to justify a charge of murder. The trial court rightly convicted them under Section 304-II IPC, and there is no ground to interfere with that finding."

However, considering Prabhakar Bisoi’s disability and time already served, the Court modified his sentence to the period already undergone and ordered his immediate release.

The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed the legal principle that not every case of homicide amounts to murder. The ruling emphasizes that "the intention to cause death must be established beyond doubt, and if the evidence only suggests knowledge of a possible fatal outcome, the case falls under Section 304-II IPC."

By distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, the judgment underscores the importance of evaluating the nature of injuries, the presence of prior enmity, and the spontaneity of the act before deciding the appropriate charge. The ruling ensures that punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the offense while balancing considerations of justice and rehabilitation.
 

Date of Decision: 04 March 2025