Kanjhawala: Culpable Homicide, Murder or Something Else? Time & Probe Will Tell

Kanjhawala Case: The police has said that they have added Section 302 IPC (murder).

The horrifying death of 20-year-old Anjali Singh, after she came under the wheels of a Baleno car and continued to be dragged for 12 kilometres, has sent shivers down the nation's spine.

Last week, according to media reports, the Ministry of Home Affairs said that murder charges should be filed against the accused in this case.

On Tuesday, 17 January, Special Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) Sagar Preet Hooda told reporters:

“After collection of physical, oral, forensic and other scientific evidence, the police has added Section 302 IPC, in place of section 304 IPC. Further investigation is in progress.”

While 304 IPC is punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Section 302 IPC is punishment for murder.

And while the police systems are frequently known to show misapplication of mind and/or incorrectly slap unsubstantiated charges, sometimes even attracting disdain from the constitutional courts —

Such as, when the apex court felt the need to remind, in their order granting bail to journalist Mohammed Zubair, that “police officers have a duty to apply their mind to the case before them and ensure that the condition(s) in Section 41 are met before they conduct an arrest…”

…Or when the Bombay High Court quoted William Shakespeare in their order quashing a case of cruelty against a judicial office: “But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.”

— can one legitimately argue that the police is wrong to book the Khanjawala accused for murder? Not quite. Not yet at least.

“If the prima facie evidence suggests that more than one crime involving similar ingredients has been committed, the police can go ahead and book the perpetrators for all such offences. However, the charges will remain subject to investigation in the matter.”

Advocate Harshit Anand

Simply speaking, culpable homicide and murder are not all that far away from each other in terms of ingredients. In fact Section 300 of Indian Penal Code goes on to say that barring exceptions (which then come under Section 304), culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.

But how can one say that the intention of those in the Baleno was to kill the victim? At the moment, one cannot. In fact, initial reports of the incident had cited the police as saying that the accused and the victim did not know each other. Also, it could’ve been just another instance of reckless, drunk driving leading to horrifying consequences (death by negligence).

But here’s the thing: A further reading of Section 300 (which defines murder, remember?) shows that intent is a key ingredient in all murder cases, except one:

“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.”

This means that accused would know that what they are doing is so dangerous that it can lead to the victim’s death but they still do it, without there being a real justification for it.

A PTI report from 9 January cited police sources as having said that the accused (who were in the car) in this case, were aware that a woman was trapped between the wheels of their car but did not try to rescue her because they were afraid that someone might see them. That cannot be construed as a real justification for not rescuing.

But let's not jump the gun! These claims are yet to be verified. Also that same report said that during interrogation, there were contradictions in the statements of the accused.

Besides, statements of the accused have little to no evidentiary value, unless recorded before a magistrate under 164 CrPc or leading to discovery of a fact, because such statements recorded by investigating authorities (in)famously lack credibility.

Further, media reports tell too little at this stage. One has to actually wait for the entirety of the investigation to pan out and the chargesheet to be filed to get a better idea.

Of course, given the intensity of media glare on this case, one might not be wrong to wonder if public sentiment had an influence on the sections added. But as pointed out by Advocate Shrey Sharawat:

“While you can argue that the Police should not invoke any section based on any sentiment, without any cogent evidence, at this point, one cannot substantiate the claim that there wasn’t any cogent evidence as the police is yet to file a chargesheet.”

What matters, pertinently, in this case is whether the police has adequate evidence to claim that the accused knew and didn’t stop and rescue, or to back any other incriminating claim. Otherwise, the case (and especially the murder charge) might fall flat, or worse, transmute into a travesty of justice.

As articulated by Anand:

“If the fact finding later suggests that any of the charges are not made out, such charges should ideally be dropped by the police, or the magistrate at the stage of framing of charges before the trial.”