Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

The Supreme Court recently modified the punishment in a 24-year-old culpable homicide case, reducing the sentence to the time already served by the convict. The Court reclassified the offense under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code,1860 IPC, citing that the crime was committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation. 

• This decision affiliated with the High Court's view that the incident, which involved a stabbing that led to a death and injury, occurred in the "heat of the moment" and was not preplanned. 
• Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held in the matter of Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat case. 

What was the Background of Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat? 

• The incident occurred in November, 2000 and involved a family dispute between the appellant Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala, his father Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala, and their in-laws. 
• The appellant's sister Oneja was married to Abbasbhai, son of Idrishbhai Fidaali Mithiborewala, but there were ongoing matrimonial tensions between the couple. 
• On the day of the incident, Abbasbhai attempted to retrieve house keys from Oneja, who was staying at her father's house, leading to an altercation between the families. 
• The situation escalated when Idrishbhai Fidaali Mithiborewala (Abbasbhai's father) arrived, resulting in a physical confrontation. 
• During the altercation, the appellant Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala stabbed Idrishbhai Fidaali Mithiborewala with a kitchen knife, causing fatal injuries. 
• The appellant also stabbed Husseni (Abbasbhai's brother) when he tried to intervene, causing non-fatal injuries. 
• Initially, the trial court convicted the appellant and his father under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code, along with other charges, sentencing them to 5 years imprisonment and a fine. 
• On appeal, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 304-II of the IPC, modifying the sentence for the appellant's father but maintaining the 5-year imprisonment for the appellant. 
• Appeal was filled before Supreme Court 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's view that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment, with neither party able to control their anger, resulting in the fateful outcome. 
• The Court noted that the appellant was a young man of 18 years at the time of the incident, and his actions were likely influenced by the emotional distress caused by his sister's alleged ill-treatment by her in-laws. 
• The Court observed that the incident was not premeditated, as evidenced by its occurrence inside the residence of the appellant's family and the fact that only one stab wound each was inflicted on the deceased and the injured party. 
• The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's alteration of the charge from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, recognizing that the act was committed without premeditation in a fit of anger. 
• The Court emphasized that considerable time had elapsed since the incident, referring to this as "much water has flown down the river," which factored into their decision regarding sentencing. 
• While upholding the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, the Court deemed it appropriate to modify the sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, in the interest of justice. 

What is Section 304 of IPC ? 

• Section 304 of the IPC deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 105 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
• Section 304 of IPC can be separated into two parts: Section 304 (Part I) and Section 304 (Part II). 
  • Section 304(Part I) states that, Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 
  • Section 304 (Part II) states that, Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 

What is Culpable Homicide?

• Section 299 of IPC deals with Culpable homicide whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 100 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
• It states that whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. 

What are the key Differences Between Section 304 Part I And Part II of the IPC? 

• Intention:  
  • Part I: Involves acts done with the intention of causing death or bodily injury likely to cause death.  
  • Part II: Deals with acts done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. 
• Degree of culpability:  
  • Part I: Higher degree of culpability due to the presence of intention.  
  • Part II: Lower degree of culpability as it involves knowledge but not intention. 
• Punishment: 
  • Part I: Generally, carries a more severe punishment, which may extend to life imprisonment.  
  • Part II: Punishment is a lesser maximum punishment, often up to 10 years of imprisonment. 
• Burden of proof:  
  • Part I: The prosecution needs to prove the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm.  
  • Part II: The prosecution needs to prove knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. 
• Application:  
  • Part I: Applied in cases where there's clear evidence of intention to cause death or grievous harm.  
  • Part II: Often applied in cases of negligence or recklessness leading to death.