Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Hare Ram Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4952 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14289 of 2024]
Decided On : 03-12-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Life sentence – Merely because witnesses are relatives, cannot be a ground to discard testimony of such witnesses – Only requirement is that testimonies of such witnesses have to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection – All five witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined, their evidence in examination in-chief has remained unshaken – Trial Judge as well as High Court have rightly held that it is appellant who has caused death of deceased – There was no premeditation – Incident occurred on account of quarrel that erupted between deceased and appellant on a trivial issue – Appellant appears to have lost his control and assaulted deceased with knife in heat of anger due to provocation by deceased – It is a case of single injury – There is no evidence to show that appellant has acted in a cruel manner or has taken undue advantage of situation – Appellant would be entitled to have benefit of exception under Section 300 of IPC – Conviction of appellant converted from Section 302 of IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of IPC – Appellant has already suffered incarceration of about nine years and ten months with remission – Sentence already undergone by him would subserve ends of justice – Appellant sentenced to period already undergone. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges judgment and order dated 20th August 2024 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) vide which judgment and order passed by Trial Court convicting appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life, has been affirmed.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. If fine as imposed by Additional Sessions Judge is not paid by him, same shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court has clarified that unintentional homicide does not constitute murder under Section 302 of the IPC (!) .
Witnesses who are relatives of the deceased cannot be dismissed solely on that ground; their testimonies must be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection (!) .
The evidence from five witnesses, despite thorough cross-examination, remained consistent and unshaken in their testimony that the appellant caused the death of the deceased (!) .
The incident was provoked by a trivial issue, and there was no premeditation involved. The appellant lost control and assaulted the deceased in a heat of passion, which is a crucial consideration in the court’s decision (!) (!) .
The court found that the incident was a sudden quarrel resulting from provocation, and it involved only a single injury. There was no evidence of cruelty or undue advantage taken by the appellant (!) .
Consequently, the appellant's conviction was converted from Section 302 of the IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (!) .
The appellant had already served approximately nine years and ten months in prison with remission, and the court deemed that the sentence already undergone was sufficient to serve justice. Therefore, the appellant was sentenced to period already served and ordered to be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case (!) (!) .
The appeal was partly allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance regarding this case.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 20th August 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 2019 vide which the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 30th January 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saran convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life, has been affirmed.
3. Shorn of details, the facts giving rise to the appeal are as under:
3.2 On the basis of the oral report, FIR No. 221 of 2015 came to be registered at P.S. Manjhi on 9th November 2015 against the appellant. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned ACJM, Chapra. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and, therefore, convicted him of the same and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Smarhar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
5. Mr. Smarhar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that all the witnesses are interested witnesses, being the relatives of the deceased. He further submits that apart from the oral testimony of the witnesses, there is no other evidence to implicate the present appellant. He submits that even the alleged knife which is stated to be used in the crime has not been recovered.
6. Shri Singh, in the alternative, submits that in any case, the case would not fall under Section 302 of the IPC. He submits that there was no premeditation. According to the learned counsel, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself, it would be clear that the incident happened at the spur of a moment in a sudden fight due to the provocation by the deceased. He therefore, submits that the case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.
7. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the appeal. He submits that there are testimonies of five eyewitnesses which consistently implicate the present appellant. In any case, he submits that the injury was on the chest which is a vital body part and therefore, the learned trial Judge as well as the learned High Court have rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. From the evidence of Dr. Chandeshwar Singh (PW-6) and the Post-Mortem report, we do not find that any interference is warranted with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
9. From the evidence of Lilawati Devi (PW-1), Dhann
(1) Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.(2) Merely because witnesses are relatives, cannot be a ground to discard testimony of such witnesses – Only requirement is that test....
Homicide committed in a sudden fight, in heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
Unintentional homicide committed in a sudden fight in heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel, is punishable under Part-I of Section 304 IPC.
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC (Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023).
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intention to kill in a sudden quarrel can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder within Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the injury, the presence of a motive prior to the incident, and the absence of provocation are crucial factors in determining th....
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
