The Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed that where the prosecution fails to establish intent or knowledge requisite for “murder” under Section 300 IPC, conviction under Section 302 IPC must be modified to Section 304 Part II IPC. The decision upholds the established judicial test for distinguishing murder from culpable homicide and is binding on all subordinate courts within Jharkhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cr.A(DB)/1045/2003 of CHHOTU SINGH Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010009352003 |
| Date of Registration | 30-07-2003 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed with modification |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Jharkhand; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing principles distinguishing Section 302 and Section 304 Part II IPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained when intent or knowledge required under Section 300 IPC is not established. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that conviction under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable when evidence does not establish the necessary intent or knowledge as defined under Section 300 IPC. Instead, the case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC as the injuries caused were not on vital parts, and there was no medical opinion that they were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The evidence of the child witness, corroborated by medical evidence, established culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The sentence was modified to the period already undergone. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not specified in the judgment excerpt. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court applied legal principles distinguishing intent and knowledge for murder (Section 300) versus culpable homicide (Section 304 Part II) as propounded by prevailing jurisprudence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The deceased was assaulted with the leg of a cot, as witnessed by her minor son. Medical evidence revealed multiple abrasions and bruises but no injuries to vital parts; doctor did not opine injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. The trial court convicted under Section 302; the appellate court found the appropriate charge Section 304 Part II. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals; Supreme Court (as persuasive depending on facts) |
| Overrules | None specified; does not overrule any prior precedent, but clarifies scope |
| Distinguishes | None specified; general principles explained rather than specific cases distinguished |
| Follows | Follows established principles for distinguishing between Section 302 and Section 304 Part II IPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that, absent medical or factual evidence of intent or knowledge to cause death, Section 302 IPC conviction cannot be sustained and must be modified to Section 304 Part II.
- Clarifies the treatment of child witness testimony: unless cross-examination demonstrates tutoring or unreliability, such testimony can be sufficient when corroborated by medical evidence.
- The lack of injuries to vital parts or a medical opinion that injuries were sufficient to cause death is critical in downgrading the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Lawyers should scrutinise post-mortem reports and medical testimony carefully when contesting or defending murder charges.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by closely scrutinising the sole eyewitness testimony, which came from an 11-year-old child, son of the deceased, corroborated by the informant and the medical report.
- The trial evidence was re-examined, including the fact that four prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and the informant (P.W.5) was only a hearsay witness.
- The medical report indicated extensive bruising, but notably, no injuries on vital organs (head, scalp, skull intact) and no medical opinion that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
- The court stated that the intent or knowledge requisite for murder (Section 300 IPC) was not established — particularly as regards assaulting vital parts and fatal intent — making conviction under Section 302 IPC unsustainable.
- It classified the case as falling under Section 304 Part II IPC: culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where death results from an act done with knowledge but without the intention to cause death.
- Sentenced the appellant to imprisonment already undergone, as he had been in custody for more than 9 years.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Argued that most prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and the only direct testimony was from a child witness, with material contradictions and discrepancies.
- Submitted absence of evidence for intent to commit murder; physical injuries were generally minor and not to vital organs.
- Asserted that medical evidence did not support the conclusion that death was caused in the ordinary course of nature.
- Prayed, in the alternative, for alteration of conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence to period already undergone.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the trial court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Argued that multiple injuries to different parts, including the chest, reflected sufficient assault causing death.
- Opposed any modification or leniency, stating the appellant had caused death without excuse and deserved the sentence imposed.
Factual Background
The case arose from the death of the informant’s mother on 29.01.2001, allegedly assaulted by Chhotu Singh with the leg of a cot. The incident was witnessed by the deceased’s 11-year-old son. FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC at Barora (Baghmara) P.S. No.19/2001. During trial, several witnesses turned hostile, and medical evidence was led. The trial court convicted the appellant of murder; the appellate court reconsidered the evidence on appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (Murder): Requires proof of intent or knowledge as defined in Section 300 IPC.
- Section 300 IPC (When Culpable Homicide is Murder): The court discussed the necessity for intent or knowledge that bodily injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.
- Section 304 Part II IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder): Applied where knowledge of likely death exists, but without intention to cause death or such bodily injury.
- The court found no injuries to vital parts, and absence of medical opinion as to sufficiency of injuries to cause death in ordinary course; thus, Section 302 was not made out, but Section 304 Part II was.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded; both judges concurred in the finding and reasoning.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents, directions, or innovations were established in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and clarifies established legal principles distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code.