Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Raghav Prashad and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2014
Decided On : 26-09-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Life sentence – Prosecution case basically rests on testimony of son of deceased and nephew of deceased – Even though accused appellants were having sharp weapons, they had only used blunt side of the weapons – Medical evidence would also show that all three deceased persons had lacerated and contused wounds only and there were no incised wounds – Trial Court and High Court rightly held that accused appellants caused death of both deceased – Though accused persons could be said to have knowledge that injuries would cause death of deceased, there is no material on record to show that they had intention to kill them – Conviction under Section 302 IPC would not be tenable and is liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC – Conviction of appellants under Section 302 of IPC converted to one under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC and sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 4th July 2013 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No. 2259 of 1989 filed by accused appellants whereby, High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld judgment and order dated 8th November 1989 passed by Trial Court convicting accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Accused appellants have already undergone sentence of more than 12 years. We find that sentence already undergone by them would subserve interest of justice. Accused appellants are, therefore, directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 4th July 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 [Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No. 2259 of 1989 filed by the accused appellants whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 8th November 1989 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karvi (Banda)2 [Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”] in Sessions Case No. 88 of 1986 convicting the accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.3 [Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”] The High Court also upheld the order of sentence dated 15th November, 1989 vide which the Trial Court had sentenced the accused appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 6,000/-.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
2.2. It is the prosecution case that the accused persons who were hiding in the Baruahaar Ghat suddenly came out. They had an altercation with complainant’s father and his uncles over the measurement of agricultural fields and later started hitting them with pike, sticks, and spear.
2.3. Thereafter, complainant along with his injured father and uncles went to the Raipura police station in a bullock cart driven by one Kandhai Lal and an FIR No. 53/1986 came to be registered at 9:30 AM initially under Sections 307 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequently, the injured persons were sent to the Karvi Hospital in a truck from the police station.
2.4. Injured Ram Avtar and Namo Shankar succumbed to their injuries on the same day at Karvi Hospital whereas injured Girija Shankar also died on same day while being shifted to another hospital in Allahabad. Hence, charge under Section 302 IPC was added. 2.5. The post-mortem report dated 7th August 1986 noted various ante-mortem injuries and fractures on the body of the deceased persons.
2.6. The accused appellants were arrested on 12th August 1986. The chargesheet was filed and the case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed for Trial to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karvi (Banda) by an order dated 13th November 1986 passed by the Munsiff Court, Karvi. Thereafter, the accused appellants were released on bail on 7th January 1987.
2.7. Vide judgment and order dated 8th November 1989, the Trial Court convicted the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and vide order dated 15th November, 1989 they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 6,000/-.
2.8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Appeal being Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No. 2259 of 1989 before the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 4th July 2013. The High Court upheld the judgment and order of the Trial Court and directed the Trial Court to take necessary steps to ensure that the accused appellants who were out on bail are arrested and committed to custody to undergo their sentence.
2.9. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special leave.
SUBMISSIONS
3. We have heard Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Akshay Amritanshu, learned counsel for the respondent-Stat
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
(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....
Murder and hurt – Merely because witnesses are relatives of deceased and as such are interested witnesses that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony – Only requirement is that testimony....
The court clarified that absence of premeditation and intent in a sudden quarrel may shift the charge from murder to culpable homicide.
Unintentional homicide committed in a sudden fight in heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel, is punishable under Part-I of Section 304 IPC.
The judgment established the importance of medical evidence and legal precedents in determining the nature of injuries and the applicability of relevant sections of the IPC.
(1) It is possible to form a common intention just before or during occurrence.(2) When evidence of eyewitnesses is of sterling quality, adverse inference need not be drawn – Quality is more importan....
Homicide committed in a sudden fight, in heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC (Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023).
The court confirmed that impulsive assaults leading to death constitute culpable homicide under Section 304(II) IPC, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt.
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
