Summary
The State’s appeal against Mehram alone was partly allowed. The accused party’s armed ambush defeated private defence, but grave and sudden provocation arising from repeated unauthorised entry justified culpable homicide under section 304 Part I rather than murder. The High Court’s section 326 conviction and five-month sentence were replaced by ten years’ simple imprisonment, with the rioting conviction maintained and compensation preserved.
Issues
- Whether the accused could challenge conviction in the State’s sentence appeal without a separate appeal.
- Whether the evidence supported private defence or a murder exception.
- What conviction and sentence were appropriate for the fatal blow.
Provisions considered
- Section 304 Part I and section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860Convicted the respondent of intentional culpable homicide short of murder and retained the armed-rioting conviction. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- In the State’s appeal challenging inadequacy of sentence, the accused could seek acquittal or reduction and contest the conviction without filing a separate appeal. The Court therefore examined the findings against him. (¶¶ 4, 6)
- Evidence established that the accused party waited armed behind bushes and initiated the assault. Private defence, or excessive exercise of such a right, was unavailable on those facts. The respondent’s superficial injuries did not undermine the proved prosecution account, and a solitary fatal injury did not exclude intent to kill. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11)
- Although intentional infliction of the fatal head injury was proved, the Court found deprivation of self-control through grave and sudden provocation from repeated unauthorised entry onto the accused party’s fields. The case therefore fell under section 304 Part I. Section 304 Part II and the High Court’s section 326 approach were inappropriate. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- Advanced age and the passage of time did not justify a sentence of approximately five months for the grave offence. Ten years’ simple imprisonment was warranted, together with the retained rioting sentence and compensation if not already paid. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal partly allowed as pursued against Mehram (A5): convicted under section 304 Part I with ten years’ simple imprisonment and section 148 with six months’ simple imprisonment, concurrent; Rs.100 fine on each count with fifteen days’ additional simple imprisonment in default. Custody credit allowed; Rs.50,000 compensation payable if unpaid. Bail bonds cancelled; surrender directed within six weeks of relaxation of the Covid-19 lockdown nationally including Rajasthan.