Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Augustine George Masih, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Ajai Kumar Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9115 of 2018)
Decided On : 29-01-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – What has preceded assault has not been witnessed by any of witnesses – From evidence of witnesses it is found that though some suggestions were given with regard to motive, eye witnesses have denied the same – Both appellant and deceased were young boys at the time of incident and were students – From evidence of witnesses, it could be seen that both of them were having cordial relations – From evidence as placed on record, it is difficult to come to a finding that appellant had come with a premeditated mind to kill deceased – Possibility of altercation taking place between appellant and deceased for some reason and appellant assaulting deceased in heat of passion on account of a sudden fight, cannot be ruled out – Prosecution has failed to bring case within meaning of Section 300 of IPC – Appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC – As such, conviction of appellant under Part I of Section 304 IPC would meet ends of justice – Conviction of appellant under Section 302 of IPC altered to one under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC – As appellant has already served sentence for eight and a half years and with remission it amounts to a period of more than ten years, said sentence would sub-serve ends of justice – Release ordered. (Paras 8 to 13)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal challenges judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 3rd May, 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1914 of 1986, thereby dismissing appeal filed by appellant, which in turn challenged the judgment and order passed by Trial Court convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/-.Findings of Court:
Possibility of incident occurring in spur of moment and appellant assaulting the deceased on account of sudden provocation, due to a sudden fight between them cannot be ruled out.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves an appeal against a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, which has been altered to a conviction under Part I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) (!) (!) (!) .
The incident took place on 19th March 1985, where the deceased was injured by knife wounds inflicted by the appellant, leading to his death before reaching the hospital (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence from eyewitnesses indicates that the appellant called the deceased downstairs, and during the ensuing altercation, the appellant assaulted the deceased with a knife. The witnesses apprehended the appellant and handed him over to the police (!) (!) (!) .
The injuries sustained by the deceased included two stab wounds, one on the left side of the stomach and another on the right side of the chest, which proved fatal (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case regarding motive was challenged; the witnesses denied the motive suggested, and there was no concrete proof of premeditation (!) (!) (!) .
The court observed that the incident might have occurred in a sudden fight or heat of passion, rather than premeditated murder, and thus, the case did not meet the criteria for murder under Section 300 of the IPC (!) .
The court applied the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which pertains to acts done in sudden fight or heat of passion, leading to the conviction being modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (!) (!) .
The appellant had already served over ten years of imprisonment, including remission, and was ordered to be released forthwith, as continuing detention was no longer justified (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that unintentional homicide or acts committed in the heat of passion are not classified as murder under Section 302 IPC, aligning with the legal principle that intent is a crucial factor in categorizing homicide offenses [judgement_subject].
The decision reflects the importance of assessing the circumstances, intent, and immediate provocation in homicide cases, and the legal framework allows for different classifications based on these factors [judgement_act_referred].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident details and witnesses (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense arguments on prosecution's case (Para 5) |
| 3. prosecution's response to defense (Para 6) |
| 4. witnesses' accounts and evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 5. motive and relationship between parties (Para 9) |
| 6. court's reasoning on premeditation (Para 11) |
| 7. alteration of conviction (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 3rd May, 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1914 of 1986, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, which in turn challenged the judgment and order passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri dated 30th June, 1986 in Sessions Trial No.390 of 1985, thereby convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
3. The case of the prosecution, shorn of details, is as under:
3.1 Pradeep Kumar (PW.2), Rajeev (deceased) and Desh Raj (PW.3) and Amar (PW.4) were sitting on the rooftop on the date of incident i.e. on 19th March, 1985 at around 8:30 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased, who was a student of B.Sc., was studying while sitting on the rooftop of the building. At around 8.30 p.m., Ajai Kumar (accused) came to the door of the deceased/Rajeev and called him to come downstairs. The deceased/Rajeev therefore went downstairs alone. After some time, the witnesses heard cries of the deceased “Dada ana, mujhe mar dala”. Upon hearing the same, Pradeep Kumar (PW.2) rushed downstairs. The other witnesses also came running and saw that accused- Ajai Kumar was causing knife injuries to the deceased. All of them intervened and apprehended accused-Ajai Kumar and handed him over to the police. In the meantime, the accused threw his knife in the water tank situated in the premises of the cold storage. For medical treatment, the deceased was initially taken to Dr. Kunwar Pal (PW.7) and after preliminary treatment the deceased was taken to Government Hospital Sirsaganj, where Dr. A. K. Garg (PW.1) treated him.
3.2 The evidence of PW.1 shows that the deceased had sustained two injuries, which are as under:
ii. One stab wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the right side of the chest, 1½ cm from the right nipple. Angle acute.”
3.3 Since the condition of the deceased was serious, he was being taken for further treatment to S.N. Hospital, Agra. However, before he could reach the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.
4. The learned Trial Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have concurrently relied on the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4, being eye witnesses to the incident.
5. Shri Ravindra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the case of the prosecution is full of lacunae. It is submitted that though the incident is alleged to have occurred in the house of Pradeep Kumar (PW.2) and the deceased, the blood stains are not found there and therefore the finding that the place of incident is at the residence of PW.2 and the deceased is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the prosecution has also failed to prove any motive. It is lastly submitted that the prosecution has falsely implicated the appellant.
6. Shri Vikas Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, on the contrary, submits that the motive has clearly been established. He submits that the appellant had some friendly relations with one girl, which fact was known to the deceased. He submits that the deceased had teased the girl, and the appellant being angered by the said fact had proceeded to assault the deceased.
7. The evidence of all the three eye witnesses would reveal that the appella
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder within Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(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....
Unintentional homicide committed in a sudden fight in heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel, is punishable under Part-I of Section 304 IPC.
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Nature of injuries is decisive to determine appropriate section for conviction of accused.
Homicide committed in a sudden fight, in heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of frequent quarrels, eyewitness testimony, and strained relations can support a conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal....
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.
The court determined that the absence of premeditation and intent to kill qualified the act as culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
offence attributed to the accused would not be one punishable under Section 302 IPC, but rather that under Section 304 Part II IPC. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that....
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
