Summary
The Supreme Court accepted the eyewitness evidence that the appellants caused the deceased's death in an assault with lathis, an axe and a rod, but altered their conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC, holding that, given the land dispute, the quarrel near the appellants' field, the agricultural weapons used and the absence of premeditation, the possibility of a sudden fight in the heat of passion could not be ruled out.
Issues
- Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal and caused by the injuries inflicted by the appellants.
- Whether the offence fell under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offence, given the prior land dispute and the circumstances of the quarrel.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction for murder recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court was not sustained; the Court found the element of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, undue advantage or cruelty reasonably possible and gave the appellants the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 10, 17, 20, 21, 23)
- Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I, on finding that the death may have been caused without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and sentence reduced to the period already undergone. (¶¶ 20, 21, 23)
Held
- On the medical evidence the death was homicidal, and the consistent testimony of the eyewitnesses, including the deceased's mother, the shopkeeper near whose shop the incident occurred, a mason and the village Sarpanch, established that the deceased died of injuries caused by the appellants. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Where there was admitted prior enmity over land in the appellants' possession, the incident occurred adjacent to their field after a quarrel, the weapons were an axe and sticks commonly used by agriculturists, and nothing showed premeditation, the possibility that the offence was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel could not be ruled out. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- The nature of the injuries did not show that the appellants took undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; the appellants were therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and their conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- As the appellants had undergone more than twelve years of imprisonment before being released on bail by the Court, the sentence already undergone was held sufficient to meet the ends of justice. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Part I of Section 304 IPC; appellants sentenced to the period already undergone (over 12 years); bail bonds discharged.