Back
(2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 119
(BEFORE B.N. AGRAWAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.)
MOHD. SHAKEEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2005,
Decided on November 22, 2006
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Alteration of Conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The appellant appealed by special leave.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution case was supported by consistent evidence and medical evidence, proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances, the court concluded that the appellant should have been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The court also noted that the appellant had been in custody since 1999.
Issues: Conviction under Section 302 IPC, alteration to Section 304 Part II IPC, and the period of custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the offence, the evidence presented, and the appellant's period of custody, leading to the alteration of the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC. The appellant was awarded punishment for the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant, along with accused Mohd. Isaq and Mohd. Siraj, was tried and by judgment rendered by the trial court, while the other two accused persons were acquitted, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 2000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Against the order of acquittal, no appeal was preferred. On appeal being preferred by the appellant, the High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. The prosecution case is supported by the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 (Zubeda Bee, Zaheda Begum and Mohd. Sarwar respectively). These witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution case and their statements are corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Coming now to the nature of offence, it may be stated that the appellant is said to have inflicted only one injury and he has also received injury. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in confirming conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC rather he should have been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. It has been stated that the appellant is in custody since the year 1999. In our view, ends of justice would be met in case the appellant is awarded punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC for the period already undergone.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is altered into Section 304 Part II IPC and he is awarded sentence for the period already undergone. The appellant, who a is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
Appeal allowed in part.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
