Conversion of Conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide Due to Absence of Premeditated Intent to Kill.

On April 22, 2015, at approximately 11:00 PM, the appellant, Jag Prasad Yadav, entered the courtyard of the complainant's house where Rekha (P.W.2) was sleeping with her two children—Shagun (3.5 years) and Payal (1 year).

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, after acting aggressively and kicking P.W.2, picked up both children and threw them into a nearby well.

Shagun died of drowning, while Payal survived with eye injuries.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 (Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), and Section 323 (Voluntary causing hurt) of the IPC, while acquitting him under the SC/ST Act.

The appellant challenged the conviction, citing a lack of motive and inconsistencies in the medical evidence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence

2. Whether the act of throwing the children into the well, in the absence of premeditated motive to kill, qualifies as murder under Section 300 or culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC

The Court primarily applied Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to distinguish between "culpable homicide" and "murder," along with Section 304 Part II for punishment where knowledge exists without specific intent.

The Court relied on the principles in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the four-point test for "intention to inflict bodily injury"

Pulicherla Nagarjun v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which outlines circumstances (such as nature of weapon, provocation, and heat of passion) to gather intention.

Additionally, the court applied the principle that in cases of direct eye-witness testimony, the absence of a proven motive does not invalidate the prosecution's case.

The High Court found the testimony of the injured eye-witness (P.W.2) highly credible, noting that as the mother of the victims, she had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant while the real culprit went free.

The medical reports corroborated her version: her leg injuries matched her claim of being kicked, and the presence of 50ml of black liquid in the deceased's stomach supported death by drowning.

However, the Court observed that the appellant did not go to the house with a premeditated plan to kill the children; rather, he went with "bad intentions" toward P.W.2 and threw the children into the well in a "heat of passion" following her resistance.

Applying the Virsa Singh criteria, the Court reasoned that while the appellant possessed the knowledge that throwing toddlers into a well was likely to cause death, the lack of prior enmity or premeditation suggested a lack of specific intent to murder.

Consequently, the act failed the "Murder" test under Section 300 but satisfied the criteria for "Culpable Homicide" under Section 299.

The Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 307 (7 years R.I.) and 323 (6 months R.I.) IPC. As the appellant had been in jail since April 25, 2015, the Court directed his immediate release upon completion of the 10-year term and payment of the fine (or serving the default period), provided he was not required in any other case.