Summary
A 58-year-old landlord visiting Katol to collect rent was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for fatally stabbing a shopkeeper and injuring three others in a daylight scuffle in 2013; the Bombay High Court affirmed. His written statement under Section 313(5) CrPC, describing provocation by spitting and abuse, an attack on him with a knife, and his own serious injuries, was never considered by either court. The Supreme Court converted the conviction to Section 304 Part II: a written statement under Section 313(5) forms part of the accused's statement and must be weighed with the prosecution evidence; read as a whole it gave a plausible account of a sudden quarrel without premeditation in which the deceased, who arrived last, was not the target, and Exception 4 to Section 300 applied. Nine years in custody was held adequate punishment.
Issues
- Whether a written statement filed by the accused under Section 313(5) CrPC must be considered by the trial and appellate courts together with the prosecution evidence, and whether its non-consideration vitiates a conviction for murder.
- Whether a killing in a sudden scuffle provoked by the victim's side, in which the accused himself sustained grievous injuries, falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 313(1)(b), (4) and (5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The examination of the accused is a valuable safeguard enabling him to explain incriminating circumstances; a written statement filed under sub-section (5) and exhibited forms part of the statement, cannot be dissected to use only the inculpatory part, and must be weighed with the prosecution evidence; failure to consider it may vitiate the conviction. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Exception 4 to Section 300 and Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860Culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without undue advantage or cruelty, whichever party provoked or struck first; the circumstances satisfied all four requirements, so conviction was altered to Section 304 Part II. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
Held
- The written statement admitted presence and injuries to the victims but asserted that the appellant was spat upon and abused, that the deceased drew a knife and another witness a 'fighter', and that he was injured on his hands, chest and shoulder; the trial court overruled the plea of private defence and Section 304 Part II by relying on the injured witnesses without appreciating this version, and the High Court's attention was not drawn to it at all. An elderly man visiting to collect rent would hardly plan a knife murder in broad daylight before witnesses. (¶¶ 12, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The meeting was by chance, the old dispute with one witness had subsided and no motive was shown for the first blow; the deceased appeared suddenly and was the third person stabbed, so he was not the target; the appellant's own grievous injury was never investigated; and imputing an intention to cause death or the fatal injury in these circumstances is unreasonable. The appellant was entitled to Exception 4, and having served over nine years in his late sixties, that period is adequate punishment; the Section 307 sentence, though based on a highly suspect conviction, was left to rest as already served. (¶¶ 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30)
Result
Appeal allowed in part without costs; conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence set aside and the appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC with the nine years already undergone treated as adequate; appellant to be released forthwith unless required in another case; no direction to investigate his injuries given the lapse of a decade.