Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- We are not called upon to go into the details, having regard to the general circumstances present in this case. It is true that an occurrence took place, which ended fatally and the appellant was the aggressor. The short question is whether the offence under S. 302 or under S. 304, Part II is made out. Undoubtedly, there was a quarrel, whether it amounts to a fight within the meaning of S. 302 or not. Incensed by the situation the appellant gave a blow with a stick. It fell on a vulnerable part of the victims body, resulting in his death. It is a marginal case where the Sessions Court held that the evidence was one under S. 304 I. P. C. and awarded a sentence of five and a half years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court took a contrary view and convicted the appellant under S. 302 I. P. C. with the inevitable sentence of life imprisonment. We are inclined to take a more lenient view on the facts and hold that the appellant was guilty under S. 304, Part II, I.P.C. In the circumstances, we cannot overlook the fact that the blow was on a vital part and that a life has been lost. Therefore, we sentence the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It is represented by counsel for the appellant that the convict may be kept in the District jail, Gurgaon so that his wife and child may be able to meet him occasionally. We think that in such cases humane considerations are important and family ties must be preserved instead of de-humanising attitudes and distances being inflicted. We are sure the authorities will take this compassionate view and keep him in the District jail, Gurgaon.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1981 SC 642

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.