Summary
The State's appeal against the High Court's conversion of the respondents' conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, and release on the sentence undergone with fine, was dismissed. The medical evidence (post-mortem recording death by asphyxia with cause not ascertainable; the doctor's evidence that the injuries were simple) left a serious doubt whether the injuries caused the death fifteen days later, so no interference was warranted; the Court added a postscript urging High Courts to prioritise old criminal appeals where the accused are on bail.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in converting the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC into one under the second part of Section 304 IPC and releasing the accused on the sentence already undergone with a fine.
- Whether the medical evidence established that the injuries inflicted by the respondents caused the death of the deceased, who died fifteen days after the incident.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The trial Court convicted the respondents of murder with the aid of Section 149; the High Court set aside that conviction. The Supreme Court found the medical opinion did not support a homicidal death, so the State's plea to restore the Section 302 conviction was rejected. (¶¶ 1, 2, 12, 13)
- Section 304 (second part), Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court converted the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the second part of Section 304. The Court observed that, given the post-mortem report (asphyxia, exact cause not ascertainable), the chemical examination ruling out poisoning and the doctor's evidence that the injuries were simple, there was a serious doubt whether even Section 304 could apply; since the accused had not appealed, the High Court's order was left undisturbed. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13)
- Sections 147, 452, 325 and 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Convictions for rioting, house trespass and causing grievous and simple hurt were confirmed by the High Court; two injured witnesses suffered fractures. These convictions were not disturbed. (¶¶ 1, 2, 4, 9)
Held
- Where the post-mortem report records the cause of death as asphyxia without the exact cause being ascertainable, chemical analysis rules out poisoning, and the examining doctor states that the deceased died of suffocation and that a definite reason was difficult to give, the prosecution fails to prove that the injuries inflicted caused the death, especially where death occurred fifteen days after the incident. Such medical evidence creates a serious doubt whether even Section 304 IPC could be applied, so the State's plea to restore the conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot succeed. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Although the accused had not appealed, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order letting them off under Section 304 read with Section 149 IPC on the sentence undergone, given the doubt on causation, the fact that the incident was twenty-eight years old when the High Court decided the appeal and thirty-six years old before the Supreme Court, that at least five accused were above seventy and one about eighty, and that a substantial fine of Rs. 16,000 each had been imposed. (¶¶ 10, 13, 14)
- Postscript: High Courts, which usually prioritise appeals where the accused are in custody, should strike a balance by also taking up old appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail, particularly where a life sentence has been imposed, since dismissing such an appeal after a decade or more raises the question of sending the accused back to jail after a long lapse of time; the age of the accused and the time elapsed can be grounds for priority. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal by the State dismissed; High Court's judgment converting the conviction to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and releasing the respondents on the sentence undergone with fine left undisturbed.