State of Karnataka v. KHATU@ HANUMANTHARA YA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. P. Naolekar
Judgment Date: 2007-07-09
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed; the High Court’s alteration of conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC is set aside. The respondent is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Karnataka

Respondents

KHATU@ HANUMANTHARA YA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sanjay R. Hedge
• Anil K. Mishra
• Amit K. Chawla

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Sarada Devi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns criminal appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court’s alteration of the conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) based on the dying declaration and witness evidence. The accused set his brother-in-law on fire after an incident where the wife (the accused’s sister) questioned him; the burning resulted in death. The High Court, relying on the dying declaration and other material, held that there was no premeditation to kill and that the act fell under Section 304 Part II IPC, not 302 IPC. The State challenged this view, arguing that the High Court’s reasoning did not disclose proper application of mind and that the evidence demonstrated the accused’s knowledge that his actions could cause death. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order to be confusing and unsustainable because it failed to provide adequate reasons for categorizing the offence under 304 Part II rather than 302. On appeal, the Court reversed the High Court’s judgment, convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The decision underscores the need for a clear, reasoned order when altering a conviction between 302 and 304 Part II and highlights the limited role of a dying declaration in such determinations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 and 304 Part-IIIPC 302IPC 304 Part II

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Dying declarations can be used as evidence of guilt when credible.
Section 304 Part II IPC requires the offender to have knowledge that death would result from his act; absence of premeditation alone may not suffice.
Courts must provide clear, reasoned justification when altering a conviction between sections 302 and 304 Part II.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the High Court’s modification of the conviction from 302 IPC to 304 Part II IPC rests on an inadequate and unclear application of mind. The dying declaration and witness statements point to facts showing the accused’s knowledge that his action could lead to death. The High Court’s reasoning is described as confusing and insufficiently reasoned, failing to justify the reclassification. The State urges restoration of the 302 IPC conviction and life sentence, arguing that the evidence demonstrates culpability beyond reasonable doubt and that premeditation or knowledge of death is established by the surrounding circumstances and the dying declaration.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the High Court’s view is correct: there was no premeditation, and the act of setting the deceased on fire occurred in the heat of the moment after provocation. The defense maintains that the evidence supports Section 304 Part II rather than Section 302, and that the High Court’s analysis should be upheld if properly reasoned.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A + '- B ;,__ # STA TE OF KARNA TAKA ## _v._ ## KHA TU@ HANUMANTHARA YA ## JULY9,2007 [DR. ARJJIT PASA VAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] ...... ,.,; -y _Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 and 304 Part-II:_ _Murder-Accused setting his brother-in-law on fire causing his deathDying declaration-Trial Court found him guilty of committing the crime_ c _uls. 302 /PC and sentenced him accordingly-Conviction of the accused_ i _altered to S.304 Part-II by the High Court-On appeal, Held: High Court found that the accused had knowledge that by setting the deceased on fire, he had committed the crime that would result in the death of the deceasedUnder the circumstances, High Court was not justified in altering the_ D _conviction of the accused from s.302 /PC to s.304 Part-II /PC without assigning any reasons therefor-Hence, order of the High Court unsustainable, thus, set aside._ The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was that in the facts and circumstances of the case, after believing the dying E declaration and statements of the witnesses, whether the High Court was right in altering conviction of the accused from s.302 IPC to s. 304 Part-II IPC. ## Allowing the appeals, the Court -; > HELD: 1.1. The dying declaration goes to show that the accused got wild F when the deceased questioned his wife who is the sister of the accused. The High Court found that there was no pre meditation to kill the accused and on seeing the admonition the accused lost control and chased the deceased and set him on fire by pouring kerosene on him; and that the accused had knowledge that his action would definitely end up in the death of the deceased. G On these observations the High Court held that the case was covered under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. > . (Para 4) (191-B, CJ .; 1.2. The order impugned is very confusing, does not disclose application 189 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R. 190 A of mind and it is not clear as to why the High Court felt that the case is covered under Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Since practically no reason has been indicated to justify the conclusion, the order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and, thus, set aside. The respondent is convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. !Para 51 (191-D, El ## B -+ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 995996 of2002. From the Judgment & Order dated 20.3.2001 of the High Court of C Kamataka, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 544/1998 & 330/1998. .. Sanjay R. Hedge, Anil K. Mishra and Amit K. Chawla for the Appellant. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in these appeals is te the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court. By the impugned judgment while believing the evidence of witnesses and the dying declaration recorded, the High Court was of the view that the conviction of E the accused respondent was one punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the '!PC') and not under Section 302 IPC. Since the evidence of the witnesses and the dying declaration have been accepted the only question that remains to be considered is whether the High Court was justified in holding that the case related to Section 304 Part II and not Section 302 !PC. _}-_ ' F 2. The State of Kamataka questions correctness of the judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. 3. The only reason indicated by the High Court is as under: G H "The entire narration at Ex.P. I 0 would point out that the accused got wild when the deceased questioned his wifo, who is the sister of the accused. This shows that there is no pre-mediation or a motive for the accused to kill the deceased. On seeing the admonition the accused lost control and chased his brother-in-law. But by doing this, he had the knowledge that this action would definitely end up in the death of his brother in law. The knowledge of his action is clearly established 191 STATEOFKARNATAKAv.KHATU@HANUMANIBARAYA[PASAYAT,J.] --;-- """ =* • > from the material on record. Therefore, the offence do not fall under A Section 304 IPC i.e. culpable homicide amounting to murder, but it is an offence falling under Section 304 Part II IPC." ; -( -4 -~ 4. The reasoning of the High Court is patently erroneous and does not disclose the application of mind. It is not conceivable as to why the person would chase another who had not committed any wrong to him and then set B him on fire. The dying declaration goes to show that the accused got wild when the deceased questioned his wife who is the sister of the accused. The High Court found that there was no pre meditation to kill the accused and on seeing the admonition the accused lost control and chased the deceased and set him to fire by pouring kerosene on him. The High Court was of the c view that the accused had knowledge that his action would definitely end up in the death of the deceased. On these observations the High Court held that the case was covered under Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 302 JPC. 5. The order impugned is very confusing, does not disclose application D of mind and it is not clear as to why the High Court felt that the case is covered under Section 304 Part II !PC and not under Section 302. Since practically no reason has been indicated to justify the conclusion the order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. We set aside the order of the High Court. _The_ appeals are allowed and the respondent is convicted and sentenced E for rigorous imprisonment for life. Appeals allowed. S.K.S.