Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU (AIR 1956 SC 654) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU (AIR 1956 SC 654)

Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU (AIR 1956 SC 654) is a landmark case that pertains the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code. The case centres around a retaliatory attack stemming from a prior altercation. The attack led to the conviction of the Appellant Kapur Singh. The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Bhagwati, Justice Jagannadhadas and Justice V Ayyar in its decision on 15th September, 1954 highlights the importance of intent and the nature of injuries in determining the appropriate charge under the IPC. The Court altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Historical Context and Facts of Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU (AIR 1956 SC 654)

The case at hand revolves around a retaliatory murder stemming from a prior altercation. The following are the brief facts of the case -

Background Incident

Bachan Singh, the son of the deceased, inflicted a severe injury on Pritam Singh who was the son of the Appellant. The attack led to the amputation of the leg of Pritam Singh.

Retaliatory Attack

On 30th September, 1952 the Appellant Kapur Singh sought revenge for an earlier incident confronted the deceased Bachan Singh along with Chandan Singh. During the encounter, Chandan Singh restrained the deceased while Kapur Singh used a gandasa and inflicted 18 injuries on the arms and legs of the deceased which resulted in his death.

Post-Incident Actions

Following the attack the Appellant Kapur Singh fled and went into hiding on the other hand Chandan Singh was arrested.

Decision of the Session Judge

The Session Judge convicted both Kapur Singh and Chandan Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to death. The High Court also upheld the decision of the Session Judge.

Issue addressed in Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU (AIR 1956 SC 654)

The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the accused had the intention to kill the victim as under Section 300 Indian Penal Code or not?

Legal Provisions involved in Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU (AIR 1956 SC 654)

In Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU Section 299, Section 300 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code played a significant role. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

Section 299 of Indian Penal Code: Culpable Homicide

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.

Section 300 of Indian Penal Code: Murder

• It states that except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or
• If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused or
• If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or
• If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for Murder

Section 302 (Now Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023) deals with the punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Judgment and Impact of Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU (AIR 1956 SC 654)

The Appellant Kapur Singh was initially convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge and the decision was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court upon appeal limited its review to the question of sentencing.

The Supreme Court observed that the motive for the crime was rooted in revenge as the Appellant Kapur Singh sought to retaliate against the family of the deceased for a prior incident where Bachan Singh, son of the deceased, caused an injury to Pritam Singh which resulted in the amputation of his leg. The Appellant and Chand Singh on 30th September, 1952 attacked the deceased.

The Court reasoned that the intention of the Appellant Kapur Singh was not to kill the deceased but to inflict grievous injuries as an act of vengeance likely causing death due to the nature and extent of the injuries. The intention was evident from the fact that the injuries targeted non-vital parts.

The Supreme Court in Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU after analysing the facts and circumstances of the case ruled that the conviction should be altered from Section 302 to Section 304(1) i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Consequently, the Court set aside the death and the Appellant Kapur Singh was sentenced to transportation for life.

Conclusion

The case of Kapur Singh v State of PEPSU highlights the significance of examining intent and the nature of injuries inflicted during a crime. The Supreme Court by distinguishing between culpable homicide and murder set an important precedent and emphasized that not all homicides constitute murder under Section 300 of the IPC. The judgment not only reduced the severity of the sentence but also highlighted the nuanced application of legal provisions in determining the appropriate punishment.