After Fatal Assault Over Courtyard Bathing, Jharkhand HC Cuts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide Part I, Orders Release After 12 Years

On 3 June 2014, Mukesh Kumar Sao was assaulted in his courtyard while bathing. The prosecution alleged that Tasleem Khan knocked him down and pressed and kicked his abdomen, while Afroz Khan and Nagina Khatoon also participated in the assault.

Mukesh was taken for treatment, underwent surgery for a perforation in his small intestine, and died on 5 June 2014; the post-mortem attributed death to septicaemia resulting from the injuries.

The trial court convicted Tasleem under Section 302 IPC and Afroz and Nagina under Section 323 IPC.

They appealed against their convictions and sentences.

Sections 299 and 300 IPC distinguish culpable homicide from murder by reference to the accused’s intention or knowledge and the nature of the injury; Section 304 Part I applies where the requisite intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death is established, while Part II applies where there is knowledge of likely death but no such intention.

Exception 4 to Section 300 applies where a killing occurs without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly or unusually.

The Court relied on State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382, for the distinction between culpable homicide and murder; Nankaunoo v. State of U.P., (2016) 3 SCC 317, and Anbazhagan v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 857, on intention, knowledge, and the assessment of Section 300; and Jairaj v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 1519, and Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P., (1996) 6 SCC 129, on the mental element required for culpable homicide.

The Court accepted the consistent eyewitness evidence that Tasleem repeatedly pressed and kicked the deceased’s abdomen, and found that the abdominal injury and intestinal perforation were supported by the medical evidence.

It nevertheless considered the absence of prior enmity or premeditation, the lack of a weapon, and the use of fists and kicks, and concluded that the assault arose suddenly from an objection to the deceased bathing in the courtyard.

The Court held that murder under Section 302 was not established, but inferred from the nature and location of the assault that Tasleem intended to cause bodily injury likely to cause death; accordingly, the offence fell under Section 304 Part I, rather than Part II.

The evidence that Afroz and Nagina assaulted the deceased and that Nagina also participated in assaulting a rescuer supported their Section 323 convictions.

The convictions of Afroz Khan and Nagina Khatoon under Section 323 IPC were upheld, but their sentences were reduced to the periods already undergone, and they were discharged from their bail bonds.