Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the two appellants caused the deceased's death by knife injuries, but altered their murder conviction to culpable homicide under Part I of Section 304 IPC. The delayed FIR, contradictions in the eyewitnesses' evidence and the unexplained injuries on the accused made a sudden fight without premeditation a possible version, entitling them to the benefit of doubt; they were sentenced to the period already undergone.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved that the appellants caused the homicidal death of the deceased.
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be reduced to a lesser offence where the FIR was delayed, the eyewitness evidence was inconsistent, and the injuries on the accused were unexplained.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The concurrent conviction for murder was not sustained, because the possibility that the death occurred in a sudden fight between two groups without premeditation could not be excluded. (¶¶ 2, 10, 16, 18)
- Section 300, Exception 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court found nothing to show premeditation, undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct, and held that a killing in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel could not be ruled out. (¶ 15)
- Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I, and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Held
- The post-mortem evidence and the testimony of the two eyewitnesses proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants inflicted the injuries on the deceased and that one of them was sufficient to cause death, so the finding of homicidal death by the appellants called for no interference. (¶ 9)
- The FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the incident and the injured witness's explanation for the delay was not plausible; his account also conflicted with his earlier police statement, and the second eyewitness, his aunt, gave a contradictory account and made her statement only after he was arrested. (¶ 12)
- The injuries on the two appellants, recorded in medical certificates and proved through the investigating officer of the cross-FIR, were admittedly unexplained by the prosecution, and the prosecution's own investigating officer found the accused admitted to the same hospital as the deceased. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The defence version, that the deceased and the injured witness came to the shop and a fight broke out between the two groups, was a possible one; with no evidence of premeditation, undue advantage or cruelty, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and the case fell under Part I of Section 304 IPC rather than Section 302 IPC. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC altered to Part I of Section 304 IPC; appellants sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released if not required in any other case.