Moot Problem

In the panchayat elections of Uttar Pradesh, 1960, a clash took place between two political
rivalry parties i.e., People’s Group and Janta Morcha. One of the members of the Janta
Morcha was murdered. Accordingly, nine members of the other party were accused of that
murder. More incidents between the parties occurred and subsequently, a punitive police
force was stationed in that area to maintain peace. In order to devise protective measures
against the onslaughts of their opponents, the deceased (leader of Janta Morcha political
party) held a meeting at his house, wherein they resolved to defend themselves against the
aggressive actions of the respondents and their party-members. One of his men owned a
cattle shed. However, the passage to the shed was blocked by the opponent party. The
deceased along with his man filed a report in the nearby police station.

On 23 July, 1968, the deceased along with his 2 men boarded a bus for a place. After a few
minutes, 5 accused men boarded the same bus and at a right moment, they started beating him
with sticks mercilessly until he became unconscious. The deceased was then taken to a
hospital by his companion. The doctors found 19 serious injuries in his body. He then passed
on the information to the Judicial Magistrate.

The issue that arises is whether the offence revealed by the facts and circumstances
established by the prosecution against the respondent, is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

The trial Judge convicted 2 of the 5 accused men under section 301 as well as under section
302 read with section 34, penal code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.
Later on, the High Court altered their conviction to one under section304, Pt. II, Penal Code
and reduced their sentence to 'five years rigorous imprisonment, each.

The trial Court had convicted the respondent with the offence of murder. It applied the rule
that was applicable in Virsa Singh's case (supra) and the ratio of Anda and Ors vs. Rajasthan
and held that the case was clearly covered by clause Third of section 300. The High Court
disagreed with the trial Court and held that the offence was not murder but one under section
304 (part 2).

The High Court concluded on the grounds of the following reasons:

• It was an impulsive act and there was no premeditation in the attack.
• All of the 21 injuries were on the arms and legs and not on the head or any other vital part
of the body.
• There must be some bleeding but not heavy haemorrhage.
• The death was due to shock and not due to the injuries. One of the pieces of evidence
supported this statement.
• The accused might not be aware that this act could result in the death of the person. Thus,
the offence is culpable homicide under section 299 of IPC and punished under section 304, II
part, and not murder.

Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the parties are now before the Hon’ble Supreme.