The Supreme Court has restored a murder conviction in a 2003 road ambush case from Madhya Pradesh, holding that the High Court erred in diluting the offence to culpable homicide. The Bench found that the brutal assault, which left one man dead and several others injured, clearly amounted to murder under the Indian Penal Code.
The ruling came in appeals arising out of a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had reduced the conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The case relates to the killing of Bhaggu @ Bhag Chand on July 11, 2003. According to the prosecution, the deceased and others were returning in a mini-bus when their vehicle was stopped after pipes were deliberately placed across the road.
A group of accused persons, armed with lathis (wooden sticks), allegedly attacked the passengers. Bhaggu sustained multiple injuries and later died in hospital.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder.
However, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and reduced the sentence to six years’ rigorous imprisonment, holding that only one head injury caused death and that the common object to commit murder was not proved.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Court’s Examination of Medical Evidence
The Supreme Court closely examined the post-mortem report (Exhibit P/8), which had been admitted by the defence during trial .
The report recorded 29 injuries on the body of the deceased, including multiple bone-deep wounds on the head. The cause of death was noted as coma resulting from a head injury that caused a fracture of the parietal bone along with brain damage.
Rejecting the High Court’s observation that only a single injury was relevant, the Bench noted that several blows were directed at the head - a vital part of the body.
“The nature, location and multiplicity of the injuries leave little scope for treating the death as the result of a solitary blow,” the Court observed.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Whether It Was Murder or Culpable Homicide
The central issue before the Court was whether the offence amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.
Explaining the legal distinction, the Bench reiterated that culpable homicide becomes murder when the bodily injury inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Applying this principle, the Court held that repeated lathi blows on the skull, resulting in fractures and brain injury, clearly satisfied the ingredients of murder.
“When repeated blows are inflicted on the parietal and temporal regions with considerable force, it cannot be said that the assailants lacked intention,” the Bench stated.
The Court also noted that the accused had obstructed the road in advance and lay in wait, indicating preparation rather than a sudden fight.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
Role of Unlawful Assembly
The High Court had reasoned that since the prosecution failed to establish which accused caused the fatal injury, a murder conviction could not be sustained.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
It emphasized that once an unlawful assembly is proved, Section 149 IPC makes every member vicariously liable for acts committed in furtherance of the common object.
“Individual attribution of the fatal blow becomes inconsequential once the common object to commit murder is established,” the Court held.
The Bench found that the deliberate road blockade, the collective assault and the total of 63 injuries caused in the incident demonstrated a shared intention.
On Non-Examination of Doctor
The defence argued that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was not examined in court.
The Supreme Court rejected this contention, pointing out that the defence had admitted the genuineness of the post-mortem report during trial .
Once admitted, the document could be relied upon as substantive evidence.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s modification, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
The life imprisonment sentence originally imposed by the trial court stands revived.
Case Title: Sitaram Kuchhbedia v. Vimal Rana & Others
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1837–38 of 2011 (with 1835–36 of 2011)
Decision Date: February 23, 2026
