1. Altercation on a running bus — victim kicked out of vehicle — death resulting from head injuries — conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part-II IPC. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1819
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Anupam Banerjee - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1005 Of 2023 (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No.12409 Of 2022)
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Adv., Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv., Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv., Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv., Mr. Tushar Alok, Adv., Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR
For the Respondent: Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv., Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv., Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv., Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv., Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv., Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
For the Appellant : Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Adv., Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv., Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv., Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv., Mr. Tushar Alok, Adv., Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR
For the Respondent: Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv., Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv., Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv., Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv., Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv., Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
Important Points
The judgment emphasizes the principle of proportionality in sentencing, holding that when culpable homicide occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation (Exception 4, Section 300 IPC), the punishment must be proportionate to the criminality of the action rather than the maximum term.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.313
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.300(4), S.302, S.304 Part I, S.304 Part II, S.307, S.323, S.326, S.34
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.300(4), S.302, S.304 Part I, S.304 Part II, S.307, S.323, S.326, S.34
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 Part-II - Assessment of culpability and appropriate sentencing in cases involving sudden provocation - Conviction modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder on grounds of provocation and lack of intention - Imprisonment reduced from life to six years with fine adjustment. (Paras 2, 8, 10, 21)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The principle of proportionality in sentencing emphasizes that punishment must fit the crime and considers circumstances surrounding the offense. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in the death of a co-passenger during a violent altercation on a bus, which included sudden provocation. The original sentence was life imprisonment for murder, later modified to ten years for culpable homicide not amounting to murder before further reducing to six years.
Findings of Court:
The appellant’s act fell within the limits of culpable homicide due to sudden provocation, warranting leniency in sentencing while affirming his guilt.
Issues: The central issue addressed was whether the appellant acted intentionally or with culpable knowledge under provocation during the altercation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized on substantial justice based on surrounding circumstances and the principle of proportionality, leading to the conclusion that the initial sentence was harsh and warranted reduction.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction maintained but sentence reduced to six years.
(B) Criminal Procedure - The principle of proportionality in sentencing emphasizes that punishment must fit the crime and considers circumstances surrounding the offense. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in the death of a co-passenger during a violent altercation on a bus, which included sudden provocation. The original sentence was life imprisonment for murder, later modified to ten years for culpable homicide not amounting to murder before further reducing to six years.
Findings of Court:
The appellant’s act fell within the limits of culpable homicide due to sudden provocation, warranting leniency in sentencing while affirming his guilt.
Issues: The central issue addressed was whether the appellant acted intentionally or with culpable knowledge under provocation during the altercation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized on substantial justice based on surrounding circumstances and the principle of proportionality, leading to the conclusion that the initial sentence was harsh and warranted reduction.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction maintained but sentence reduced to six years.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends sentence is disproportionate given the scuffle — State argues sentence is just and proper based on the nature of the act. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Act occurred during a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation or undue advantage — maximum sentence for Section 304 Part-II IPC is disproportionate. (Para 19 )
4. Sentencing must adhere to the principle of proportionality, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors to ensure the punishment fits the criminality of the action. (Para 15 , 17 )
5. Conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC maintained — substantive sentence of imprisonment reduced from ten years to six years — fine and default stipulations upheld. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. What is the principle of proportionality in criminal sentencing?
Criminal law requires liability to be prescribed according to the culpability of the conduct. Courts must delicately balance aggravating and mitigating factors in a dispassionate manner to ensure the punishment fits the crime, avoiding uniformly disproportionate sentences. (Para 15 , 17 )
7. When does an act of culpable homicide fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC?
An act falls under Exception 4 when it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, provided the offender does not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. (Para 19 )
8. How is the testimony of an injured witness treated in criminal trials?
The evidence of an injured witness is given significant weight as a stamped witness. Their presence at the scene is generally considered reliable, and it is unlikely they would falsely implicate someone else while sparing the actual assailant. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2022 in CRA (DB) 4 of 2022, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta has modified the judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2021, as passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (EC Act), Alipore in Sessions Trial Case No.02 (09) 2001 arising out of Sessions Case no. 71 (01) 2001 corresponding to Chitpore Police Station Case No. 324 of 1999, whereby the appellant was convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life; to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The High Court modified conviction to that of the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and reduced the substantive sentence to that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case has been that on 29.09.1999, at around 23:05-23:15 hours, Narayan Chandra Roy, a Constable (informant -PW-2), after his duty hours, changed into plain clothes and boarded a Double Decker Trolly Bus bearing no. WB-04/2145 for reaching his destination at Dunlop Police Quarters from Shayambazar Crossing. After boarding, he noticed an altercation taking place on the first floor of the bus between some passengers including the appellant and Surendra Prasad Gupta (‘the deceased’/ ‘the victim’), who was also a coresident of Shaymbazaar Police Quarters. He noticed that those passengers were trying to assault the deceased so he intervened and tried to resist. However, two passengers and the appellant abused and assaulted both of them. The appellant ultimately kicked the deceased, who was standing on the steps, out of the bus with force; and as the deceased tried to catch hold of the T-shirt (‘genji’) of the informant, both of them fell down from the running bus. The deceased sustained severe head injuries and was taken to R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata by the informant, where he was admitted and the informant was discharged after primary treatment.
4. The informant thereafter visited Chitpore Police Station, where his statement was recorded and PS Case No. 324 of 1999 dated 30.09.1999 was registered for offence under Section 307 /34 IPC. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer visited the hospital to record the statement of the said victim but, he remained unconscious and ultimately succumbed to his injuries at about 2:45 a.m. The post-mortem examination (by PW-11) revealed the cause of death to be head injuries. The case was then converted to the offence punishable under Sections 302 /34 IPC. In the midst of investigation, the case was transferred to Detective Department, Lalbazar. The Investigating Officer seized a lost property from the bus, which led to the identification of the appellant and ultimately to his arrest on 02.11.1999. The informant attended test identification parade and identified the appellant by touching his body and stated before the Judicial Magistrate (PW-10) that it was the appellant who pressed his neck, slapped him, threw fists and blows and pushed him to the first floor of the bus, with the help of two other passengers. He further stated that after slapping him, the appellant started assaulting the deceased, who was right behind the appellant, and when both, he and the deceased were going down the staircase from the first floor of the bus, the appellant kicked the deceased on his leg, causing him to fall. However, while falling, the deceased caught hold of the informant’s genji and both of them fell out of the running/moving bus.
5. The charge-sheet was submitted on 02.11.2000 against the appellant for offences under Sections 302 , 307, 326, 34 IPC. The
