Absence Of Weapon, Premeditation Or Prior Enmity Relevant In Determining Whether Fatal Assault Constitutes Murder: Jharkhand High Court

The Court was hearing two connected appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC. The principal appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, while two co-appellants had been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed: “The aforesaid admitted circumstances, particularly the absence of any weapon, the lack of prior enmity, the nature of the assault being limited to fist and kick blows, and the fact that the deceased survived for two days after the occurrence, constitute material factors requiring consideration while assessing the nature of the offence and the extent of criminal liability attributable to the appellant...”

Advocate Pawan Kumar Pathak appeared for the appellants in both appeals. Special Public Prosecutor Bhola Nath Ojha represented the State.

Background

The prosecution case was that the victim was bathing in the courtyard of his house when the appellants entered the premises and assaulted him. Witnesses alleged that the principal appellant knocked him down, climbed upon his abdomen and repeatedly pressed and kicked his stomach. The co-appellants were alleged to have participated in the assault and restrained or assaulted two women who attempted to intervene.

The victim was taken to a health centre and subsequently referred to a hospital for treatment. Surgery revealed a perforation in his small intestine. He died two days after the assault, and the post-mortem examination attributed the death to septicemia resulting from the injuries.

The trial court convicted the principal appellant of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. It separately convicted the two co-appellants of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the IPC. Although the original charge invoked Section 34 of the IPC, the trial court assessed the individual role of each appellant and did not rely upon common intention while recording the convictions.

The appellants challenged the appreciation of evidence and argued that the victim might have developed septicemia because of improper treatment. Alternatively, they submitted that the principal appellant’s conduct could, at most, attract Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC.

The State maintained that the principal appellant had intentionally inflicted the abdominal injury that resulted in the victim’s death. It relied on the eyewitness accounts, the medical evidence concerning the intestinal rupture and the allegation that the co-appellants had assaulted the victim and those attempting to rescue him.

Court’s Observations

Intention, Not Motive, Determines Nature Of Homicide

The Court referred to Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), in which the Supreme Court distinguished intention from motive and explained that the intention accompanying the act determines whether an offence amounts to murder or culpable homicide.

The Supreme Court had held: “Intention is different from motive. It is the intention with which the act is done that makes a difference in arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder.”

The Court also considered the principles governing Sections 299, 300 and 304 of the IPC, including those stated in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anbazhagan. It noted that Exception 4 to Section 300 required a sudden fight, absence of premeditation, an act committed in the heat of passion and the absence of undue advantage or cruel conduct.

Occurrence Was Sudden And Not Premeditated

The evidence showed that the parties were neighbours and that no previous dispute, enmity or animosity existed between them. The principal appellant carried no weapon, and the assault consisted of fist and kick blows.

The Court found: “Rather, the occurrence appears to have arisen suddenly and on the spur of the moment on account of a dispute triggered by the deceased bathing openly in the courtyard, to which the accused persons had objected on the ground that young girls were residing in their house.”

The Court further reasoned that, had there been a deliberate intention to commit murder, it would have been natural for the assailant to carry a weapon capable of causing fatal injuries. The prosecution evidence disclosed no such circumstance.

Intention To Cause Death Was Not Proved

The Court found that the prosecution had established the assault and its causal connection with the death. The eyewitness accounts that the principal appellant repeatedly pressed and kicked the victim’s abdomen were supported by medical evidence showing a serious intestinal perforation.

However, the surrounding circumstances did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the principal appellant intended to cause death. The Court held:

“This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Tasleem Khan had the intention of causing death so as to attract the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.”

The absence of an intention to murder meant that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could not be sustained. The Court nevertheless rejected the suggestion that the fatal result attracted no serious homicidal liability.

Assault Attracted Section 304 Part I Of The IPC

The Court considered the force used and the vulnerable part of the body targeted. Although the appellant was unarmed, he had knocked the victim down and repeatedly pressed and kicked his abdomen, causing the injury that ultimately resulted in death.

The Court concluded: “Nevertheless, considering the nature of the assault and the part of the body targeted, it can reasonably be inferred that the appellant had the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Consequently, the case would appropriately fall within the purview of Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.”

The Court therefore converted the principal appellant’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

The Court also upheld the co-appellants’ convictions under Section 323 of the IPC, finding that the eyewitnesses had attributed acts of assault to them and had stated that they assaulted a woman who attempted to rescue the victim.

Conclusion

The Court modified the principal appellant’s conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC. Since he had already remained in custody for approximately 12 years, his sentence was reduced to the period undergone, and his immediate release was directed unless required in another case.

The co-appellants’ convictions under Section 323 of the IPC were upheld, but their sentences were reduced to the respective periods already undergone. They were discharged from their bail-bond liabilities. The connected appeals were disposed of with these modifications.

Cause Title: Tasleem Khan v. State of Jharkhand and Connected Appeal (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:31658-DB)

Click here to read/download Judgment