Conviction Under Section 304 Part II Upheld; Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone in View of Advanced Age

A bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria heard the criminal appeal filed by Shrikrishna challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's alteration of his trial court conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II, IPC) and the consequent sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The appeal concerned whether the appellant's single lathi-blow to the head of the deceased in a group altercation amounted to murder under Section 302 or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II, and whether the finding of common object and unlawful assembly could be sustained.

The Court upheld the High Court's conviction under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sustained the finding that the offence did not attract Section 302. The judges accepted the High Court's assessment of the appellant's individual role in a "free fight" and the medical evidence showing a single severe blunt injury to the deceased's head. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The High Court was correct in its approach in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC by assessing the individual role on his part. Having regard to the evidence on record regarding the role played by the appellant and the injuries caused by him on the head of the deceased by using lathi, he could be presumed to have acted with an intention to cause death or such bodily injury which he knew that it would be of such kind and nature that would cause, in ordinary course, the death of the person to whom it is caused.” While upholding conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant in view of his advanced age and the totality of custody time.

Background The dispute arose from a quarrel on 10 December 1992 at Village Dudankhedi when Ram Singh went to the house of the appellant to complain that the appellant's son had assaulted his son. A group clash ensued. The First Information Report (No. 181/1992) alleged that several accused, some armed with axes (farsa) and others with lathis, assaulted Ram Singh who later died of head injuries on 11 December 1992. A cross-FIR was lodged by Shrikrishna (FIR No. 182/1992) claiming he was attacked and had acted in private defence.

At trial, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 149, and other offences under Sections 324, 323 and 147, imposing life imprisonment for the murder count. The High Court, on appeal, found the overarching theory of an unlawful assembly and common object not made out and reappraised the evidence as pointing to a group fight where injuries were inflicted on both sides. The High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II, IPC and imposed seven years’ RI with a fine. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony of neighbours (including Gowardhan Singh, Bahadur Singh, Narayan Singh and Swaroop Singh) and medical evidence (Dr. Anand Uniya and Dr. Ashok Kumar) that recorded lacerations, skull fracture and hematoma; the defence emphasised the chaotic circumstances, injuries sustained by the appellant himself and the plea of private defence.

The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory distinctions between culpable homicide and murder, noting that "Culpable homicide is genus, the murder is its specie" and reiterating the tests in precedents such as Kesar Singh regarding mens rea and the distinction between Sections 304 Part I and II. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court agreed that the appellant's act could be characterized as causing injuries which he knew were likely to cause death, but that the prosecution did not establish the requisite mens rea for murder or premeditation. The Court further recorded that the appellant had been arrested on 19.12.1992, had spent in total six years and three months in custody (including periods on bail and surrender), and was over 80 years old at the time of the judgment. Considering his advanced age and the period already undergone, the Court reduced the sentence to the time already served while maintaining the conviction under Section 304 Part II. The appeal was dismissed subject to that modification.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1533 of 2011 (2026 INSC 45) Case Title: Shrikrishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi (appointed amicus curiae) For the Respondent(s): Mr. B.P. Singh, Learned Government Advocate