This article has been written by Clara D’costa. This article discusses the case in detail, including the issues raised, the arguments of the parties, the judgement and the rationale behind the judgement in Rampal Singh v. State of UP. The article talks about the difference between culpable homicide and murder, along with highlighting the crucial ingredient that the Court considers while directing the punishment for an offence, whether under Section 302 or Section 304. While deciding whether to grant punishment, the court took into consideration the statements of the witnesses and heavily emphasised the ‘intention’ of the accused for committing the offence.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction

How often is there confusion between murder and culpable homicide? There is a thin line that draws the distinction between them. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the serious crime of murder, which involves the intentional killing of another person with premeditation. On the other hand, Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with premeditation or with the intention of causing death. The case traces back to the 1970s, wherein the Appellant had an altercation with the deceased over the demolition of Ladauri in his land, which further escalated and led to the appellant shooting the deceased, and he was further granted punishment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the appellant appealed before the Supreme Court, and the bench partially accepted the appeal and altered the judgement by granting him punishment under Section 304, Part 1. This case draws the line between murder and culpable homicide while primarily relying on cases wherein the deciding factor was the intention of the accused. 

Download Now

Details of Rampal Singh v. State of UP (2012)

Case name: Rampal Singh v. State of UP

Bench: Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibhrahim Kalifulla and Justice Swatanter Kumar

Type of case: criminal appeal

Appeal No:  2114 of 2009 filed in the Supreme Court of India

Date of the Judgement: 24th July 2012

Laws discussed: Sections 299, 300, 302, 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Facts of Rampal Singh v. State of UP (2012) 

  • As stated by the prosecution, Jograj Singh and Chhatar Singh were uterine brothers, and Ram Kumar Singh (the deceased) and Rampal Singh (the appellant) were their grandsons, respectively. They both served as Lans Naiks in the Indian Army.
  • Ram Kumar Singh had constructed a ladauri on his vacant land two months prior to the incident. While Ram Kumar Singh went back after his leave, Rampal Singh (the appellant), who had come back for a leave from Agra, demolished the ladauri erected by Ram Kumar Singh (the deceased) and started disposing of garbage on the said vacant land. Five days prior to the incident, when he returned, he noticed that the ladauri was demolished and there was garbage being thrown on the said land.
  • On 13th February 1978, the deceased Ram Kumar Singh was scheduled to return to Agra. His uncle, along with a fellow villager from Dhaniapur, reached his place, and soon the appellant, Rampal Singh, joined them.
  • After some time, an argument broke out between them as Ram Kumar Singh inquired about the demolition of the ladauri erected by him and the garbage that was being disposed of on his vacant land. This eventually escalated into a brawl, and they even began grappling with each other, which resulted in the deceased throwing off the appellant on the ground. Ram Saran (brother of Rampal Singh) and his father reached the house and intervened in the fight.
  • The appellant, Rampal Singh, left the place, and later, while the deceased Ram Kumar Singh, who was speaking to Ram Saran (brother of Rampal Singh), returned from his house with a rifle, he climbed up the neighbouring roof while aiming it at Ram Kumar Singh. The appellant even asked his brother to step away from Ram Kumar Singh as he aimed his rifle at him. Ram Kumar Singh (the deceased), however, asked Rampal Singh if he had the courage to shoot him, which further riled up Rampal Singh, who then shot the bullet and fled from the site. 
  • The appellant’s brother, Ram Saran Singh, the deceased’s wife, and others helped him, filled his wounds with ata (flour), and took him to Bewar. From there, he was taken to the military hospital in Fategarh upon his wish. In the hospital, he was examined by Major Dr. Laxmi Jhingaran, who later served as a witness too. She found out that there was a bullet wound in the abdomen on the right side and thereby prepared an exhibit report and sent it to the station office, Kotewali Fategarh, for further investigation. The deceased had told her that he was shot by the appellant and that he had an intention to kill him. After this, on the basis of the exhibit report, an FIR was developed, and a case was registered by Constable Shiv Karan Singh.
  • There was a dying declaration that was made by the deceased on 13th February 1978, which was recorded by Lieutenant Colonel Basu, in which he stated that the appellant shot him when he was coming out of his house. 
  • The deceased then succumbed to the injury as he developed an infection, and thereby a postmortem report was conducted at the district hospital. After the results of the postmortem report, Dr. A.K. Rastogi was of the opinion that the death was due to shock and that toxaemia was a result of the gunshot. 
  • Thereafter, Shri Vedi Singh, who is the sub-inspector, recorded the statements of the witnesses, including the wife of the deceased, her father, and the others that were present at the crime scene, inspected the sites and the post-mortem report, and requested the military unit at Delhi to hand over the custody of the appellant, who had surrendered there on May 3, 1978.
  • There was an entire charge sheet that included the leave certificate of the appellant and was produced before the magistrate, and thus the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded life imprisonment for murdering Ram Kumar Singh by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 15th May 2007.
  • Following this, Rampal Singh appealed before the Supreme Court for changing the section under which he was granted the punishment.

Issues raised 

The issues that were raised in this case are as follows:

  1. Whether the offence should be considered as a murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or culpable homicide, not amounting to murder under Section 304.
  2. Whether the punishment shall be directed under Section 302 or Section 304, Part II, as argued by the appellant’s counsel.

Arguments raised by the parties  

Appellant’s arguments 

  • The appellant, i.e., Rampal Singh, through his counsel, did not try to rectify the facts or the findings made by the officials that held him guilty for killing Ram Kumar Singh.
  • They raised the issue that the offence for which the appellant should be charged falls under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not under Section 302.
  • They put forth before the Magistrate while viewing the statements of all witnesses and other findings of the case, that the firing of the bullet was not a premeditated plan. 
  • The appellant did not have the intention of killing the deceased, but rather, as a result of sudden provocation from the deceased, Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, the appellant, fired the rifle.

Respondent’s arguments

  • While the appellants appealed against Section 302, the learned counsel on behalf of the state argued that, after the deceased threw the appellant on the ground, he left the site and later on returned with the rifle and climbed on the roof to threaten and shoot the deceased. It was also asserted by the respondent’s counsel that the appellant even told his brother Ram Saran Singh to move away from the deceased in order to shoot him, thereby stating that it is not a result of sudden provocation that falls under Section 304.
  • The counsel for the state emphasised the facts and findings made by the High Court by stating that once they were separated, there was no reason for grave and sudden provocation for the appellant to commit such an act, thereby stating that the judgement given by the High Court does not call for any appeal.

Laws discussed in Rampal Singh v. State of UP (2012)

This case mainly discussed the difference between culpable homicide and murder. The Court further, while granting a penalty to the appellant for his actions, determined the stages and tests to classify the action as murder or culpable homicide.  

The laws that were discussed are as follows:

Section 299 of the IPC, 1860

This provision talks about culpable homicide as an act committed with 

  • An intention of murder or
  • Intention of causing bodily harm or injury that can lead to murder;
  • Knowledge that such an act can cause murder.

In this case, it has been discussed that the former part of Section 299 talks about the expression of ‘intention’ of the accused, while the latter part talks about the ‘knowledge’. These are both positive attitudes, but they are of different degrees. In ‘culpable homicide’ it is the ‘intention of the accused’ and the ‘knowledge of the consequences of the action’, and thus, if an offence is caused with mens rea along with any of the three attributes mentioned above, it amounts to culpable homicide. 

Section 300 of the IPC, 1860

Section 300 of the IPC, 1860, deals with murder, stating that the offence of culpable homicide is murder if:

  • That act that leads to death is carried out with the intention of causing death, or
  • The action that leads to death is committed with an intention to cause grave injury, and the offender has knowledge that such an injury can lead to the death of the individual to whom the injury is caused, or;
  • The act is committed with an intention to cause bodily injury to the person, and the injury that is inflicted in its ordinary course of nature will result in death or 
  • The person committing the action is aware that the act is of a serious nature and, in all situations, will lead to the death of the person, or
  • The injury that is inflicted due to that act will result in death, and the person commits such an act without any intention of causing a risk to life or a grave injury, as mentioned above.

In this case, the court has referred to the judgement in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnaya, (1976) for determining the distinction between Section 299 and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Court also referred to Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958) for the guidelines stated in order to determine the stages that this case falls under.

Section 302 of the IPC, 1860

Section 302 of the IPC, 1860, states that “whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to pay the fine that is directed by the court. In this case, the judgement was delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 15th May 2007, wherein the appellant was awarded life imprisonment under this section.

Section 304 of the IPC, 1860 

Section 304 of the IPC mentions the punishment for a person committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder and states that a person shall be punished with life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years and fine if caused with an intention of causing death; or of a higher degree of bodily harm that will result in death; or if the act is done with the knowledge that such an act can result in death even without the intention to cause death or bodily harm that will lead to death. 

The Court stated in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab (1979) that there is a distinction that is marked between the two provisions of Section 304 Part I and Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are linguistic distinctions that are evident in the language of the section. However, there are two distinctions: one is in relation to the punishment for the offence, and the other is on the foundation of the involvement of intention in causing that act, without an intention but with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death. Although the court stated these determinations, they also emphasised the fact that there are no fixed distinctions to determine the offences, and hence it depends on the nature and facts of the offence, respectively. The concerned court has to very delicately determine the facts of the case, classify the offences, and accordingly punish the accused.

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act states that a dying declaration given by a person in relation to the causes or circumstances that resulted in his death is relevant when the person who made such a statement was or was not under the expectation of death and the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.

In this case, Ram Kumar Singh (the deceased) made a dying declaration before Lieutenant Colonel Basu, wherein he stated that the appellant shot him when he was coming out of his house. This was used by the Court as a determining fact while deciding the case.

Judgement given by the Court in Rampal Singh v. State of UP (2012)

Whether the offence should be considered as a murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304

The judges of the Supreme Court overruled the judgement given by the Allahabad High Court by relieving Rampal Singh of the charges of Section 302 and convicting him under Section 304 Part I.

It was further decided that if the act was committed with the intention of committing murder, it would be charged under Section 302 of the IPC, whereas if it was committed with sudden and voluntary provocation by the victim, it would come under the exceptions of Section 300, and the accused would be punished under Section 304. The court overruled the HC’s judgement on the basis of the findings, facts, and statements of the witnesses that there was provocation made from the deceased’s end, which led to the firing of the bullet by Rampal Singh. The appeal stood partially accepted as the offence of Rampal Singh was changed from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded 10 years of rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and thus disposed the appeal.

Rationale behind this judgement

Criminal litigation

It is comprehended through the judgement given that the offence committed by the appellant was not in a fit of rage. There was a considerable amount of time between the separation and shooting of the deceased, which hence required no interference.

The Bench, however, decided to go forth through the laws with an emphasis on a clarified discussion on Sections 299, 300, 302, and 304, Parts I and II. It was also observed that culpable homicide not amounting to murder comes under Section 304, Part I.

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976), wherein it was clarified that there is a fine line between murder and culpable homicide. It was held in this case that “all murders are culpable homicides, but all culpable homicides are not murders”. In order to hold the accused liable for a crime, the extent of the punishment generally depends on three degrees of culpable homicide:

  • First degree: Murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Second degree: Culpable homicide under Section 304, Part I, of the Indian Penal Code 1860
  • Third degree: This is Section 304, Part II, and has the lowest level of punishment amongst all three degrees.

The Court further stated that when culpable homicide amounts to murder, it is tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while in cases where culpable homicide does not amount to murder, it is tried under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the cases Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958) and Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala (1966), Justice RS Sarkaria put forth the points in a clarified manner, wherein he said that on occasions when there is a case in the court wherein the issue raised is whether the offence committed is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder or a murder, there would be three stages. Firstly, it should be considered whether the accused has caused the death of another. Secondly, the relation between the offence committed and the death of the person and whether it leads to culpable homicide amounting to murder is defined as culpable homicide under Section 299. If the act committed does not fall under Section 299, then it would be under Section 304, Part I or II. If the action of the accused fulfils the conditions of Section 300, the offence would still be culpable homicide but not amounting to murder and therefore punishable under Section 304 I of the IPC. It was also stated that these are broad guidelines and have not been firmed up.

Further, after stating the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, it was time for the application of whether the action falls for penalty under Section 302 or Section 304. If the act was committed with a clear intention to kill the other person, then it is a murder with the meaning under Section 300 and punishment under Section 302 of the IPC. Whereas, in this case, it was later concluded that the act took place after the grave and sudden provocation of the deceased Ram Kumar Singh, it falls under the exceptions of Section 300 and thus is punishable under Section 304, Part I.

Whether the punishment shall be directed under Section 302 or Section 304 Part II, as argued by the appellant’s counsel.

The bench then analysed the facts of the case presented by the appellant’s counsel, wherein it was found that both the deceased and the appellant were related to each other and served in the Indian Army, and therefore there was no enmity between them. A verbal altercation that resulted in them physically fighting arose due to the argument about the ladauri. Further, the appellant was later provoked by the deceased voluntarily by asking him to shoot him if he had the courage to do so, and thus, in a fit of rage, it led to the appellant firing one shot that hit the stomach of the deceased. Upon considering the statement of Smt. Snehlata, wife of the deceased, it was then confirmed that the deceased voluntarily poked the appellant and thus led to the bullet being shot, and hence it wasn’t premeditated or thought of and was a result of a sudden provocation by the deceased.

It was further concluded that, despite being in the army and having knowledge of firearms, the appellant could not be charged with intentionally killing his cousin, as the intention was to cause a mere injury. However, the court cannot overlook the fact that it was aimed at the lower body of the appellant, and hence he had knowledge of the consequences of bodily harm caused by the bullet wound. Hence, it was quite similar to Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2007), wherein, due to a quarrel, the accused started firing indiscriminately, and it eventually hit the chin of the deceased. However, what sets it apart from the Rampal Singh case is that here he clearly told his brother to move so that he could get a clear aim at the deceased and hence has an intention of causing harm to the deceased. In Aradidi Ramudu Aggiramudu v. State , through Inspector of Police (2012), it was also considered that to shift the punishment from Section 302 to Part II of Section 304, there should even be an absence of causing bodily harm, which in this case does not exist, and hence the appeal wasn’t fully accepted.

The court awarded the appellant 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and thus disposed of the appeal.

Analysis of Rampal Singh v. State of UP (2012) 

Throughout the case, we understand how there is a line drawn between the two, ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide’. Although the appellant, Rampal Singh, ended up shooting Ram Kumar Singh, who eventually killed him, it was later concluded that it was the sudden provocation by the deceased that led him to take this step. The bench referred to multiple judgements wherein the difference between murder, culpable homicide, and culpable homicide not amounting to murder was determined, and it was decided as to under what cases the punishment would come under the Sections if the accused did not have a premeditated intention to murder.

Section 302 carries a higher punishment, often leading to life imprisonment or even the death penalty, whereas Section 304 usually results in a lesser punishment, such as imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. The main distinction lies in the intention, which is the mental state of the perpetrator at the time of the crime. Section 302 requires the presence of a specific intention to cause death, while Section 304 does not necessitate such a direct intention behind the act or the severity of the punishment imposed. It’s crucial to understand these differences to ensure justice is served appropriately in legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The case of Rampal Singh v. State of UP (2012) has been a legal matter that required careful consideration. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments presented, it is clear that the verdict reached by the court was based on a thorough analysis and interpretation of the law. Rampal Singh’s counsel put up a strong argument in order to escape from the long term penalty, but the bench took a firm stance and upheld the rule of law.

The Court diligently examined the evidence presented by the state and deliberated on the arguments put forth by both parties. It was concluded by the Court that the appellant, Rampal Singh, had a considerable amount of time to cool off and take the decision to threaten the deceased with his rifle. It was concluded that the ‘intention or state of mind’ of the accused at the time of the incident is the key factor to establish culpability in criminal cases. This case was a reminder that it is important to prove ‘the malicious intent’ behind the actions of an individual while deciding the penalty for the crime committed by that individual.

When giving its final decision, the Court emphasised the importance of upholding the rule of law. In its final decision, the court emphasised the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring fairness and justice for all parties. As we reflect on this case, we are reminded of the complexities involved in interpreting the law, proving the intent, granting the penalty, and the impact of intent on a judgement. This judgement truly reflects a commitment to fairness and impartiality in the judicial system and the meticulous process through which justice is served.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?

Section 299 and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the definitions of ‘culpable homicide ‘ and ‘murder’ respectively. Culpable homicide is defined as an act amounting to murder with:

  • The intention of murder
  • The intention of causing bodily harm or injury that can lead to murder
  • Knowledge that such an act can cause murder

And murder is, however, not very distinctly defined in Section 300 of the code. The Court has in this instance stated multiple times that all ‘murders’ are ‘culpable homicides’ but all ‘culpable homicides’ aren’t ‘murder’.  Both of them are similar but have a difference in mental attitude and intention to cause the death of a person. Section 302 deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 304 deals with the punishment for culpable homicide. 

What are the essential ingredients for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC?

  1. The offence should result in the death of an individual.
  2. There should be the intention of causing death or a bodily injury that results in death and the knowledge that such an action will result in the death or a grave injury resulting in death of an individual.
  3. There should be an action with the knowledge that the consequence of such an action can cause death or a bodily injury that results in the death or a grave injury, but without an intention to cause the death of the individual.

When does culpable homicide amount to murder?

Culpable homicide amounts to murder when the offence is committed with the intention of murdering the individual. It is also known as ‘First Degree Murder’ and is defined under Section 300 of the IPC, 1860, and the punishment is given under Section 302 of the IPC, 1860.

What is the difference in the degree of punishment given under Section 302 and Section 304 Part I of the IPC, 1860.

Under Section 302 of the IPC, the punishment for murder is a death sentence or life imprisonment with a fine, whereas under Section 304 Part I, the punishment is life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years along with a fine.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here