Supreme court : Five-step inquiry is necessary for decision in Murder trial
Position in law
Having considered all the decisions cited before us (and perhaps there are many more on the subject but not cited), in our opinion, a five-step inquiry is necessary: (i) Is there a homicide? (ii) If yes, is it a culpable homicide or a 'not-culpable homicide? (iii) If it is a culpable homicide, is the offence one of culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code) or is it a culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code)? (iv) If it is a 'not-culpable homicide' then a case Under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out. (v) If it is not possible to identify the person who has committed the homicide, the provisions of Section 72 of the Indian Penal Code may be invoked. Since this five-pronged exercise has apparently been missed out in the first category of decisions, learned amicus was of the opinion that those decisions require reconsideration.
In our view none of the decisions require any reconsideration. The position in law is as we have culled out from the cases cited before us making it clear that in most cases the person who has committed homicide (culpable or not culpable) can be identified. But it is quite possible in some cases, such as in Ninaji Raoji Boudha and Ram Lal that conclusive or specific evidence is lacking to actually pin down the person who has committed homicide (culpable or not culpable). In such cases, the accused would have to be given the benefit of Section 72 of the Indian Penal Code. Such cases arise if the investigation is defective or if the evidence is insufficient. But where it is possible to ascertain who is responsible for the homicide, the five-step inquiry can easily be carried out.
Conclusion on facts
Applying the five-step inquiry, it is clear that: (i) there was a homicide, namely the death of Sunderlal; (ii) the assailants gave two lathi blows to Sunderlal which resulted in the fracture of his ribs and piercing of his lungs. The injuries were not accidental or unintentional-the assailants had a common intention of grievously injuring Sunderlal and it is not as if they intended to cause some injury to him other that the ones inflicted, (iii) the opinion of Dr. Amar Singh Rathore confirmed that the injuries caused to Sunderlal were sufficient to cause death in the normal course. Consequently, the homicide was a culpable homicide. Applying the law laid down in Virsa Singh it is clear that Ghasi and Lala are guilty of the murder of Sunderlal, the offence falling Under Section 300 (thirdly) of the Indian Penal Code and punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 2005
Decided On: 04.07.2014
Appellants: Richhpal Singh Meena
Vs.
Respondent: Ghasi
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Citation: AIR2014SC3595, 2014CriLJ4339, 2014(4)RCR(Criminal)61, 2014(8)SCALE193, (2014)8SCC918
