SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 80

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Dharmendra @ Chandra Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 192 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Harish Chandra Tiwari

The appellate court modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC, recognizing the absence of premeditation and intention to kill during a sudden altercation influenced by the accused's intoxicated state.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 IPC - Conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and modified to Section 304 IPC - No premeditation, and incident occurred in heat of passion due to a dispute while the accused was under influence of intoxicants - Shown not to have acted in a cruel manner during the incident. (Paras 41, 42)

(B) Criminal procedure - Appeal against conviction - Convicted appellant argued for modification of the sentence to a lesser charge, claiming lack of premeditation and absence of motive - The prosecution established the act of murder; however, the court found sufficient grounds to alter the conviction amidst compelling evidence of a sudden fight arising from domestic discord. (Paras 22, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his wife during an altercation, using a sickle. The FIR indicated the appellant escaped after the attack, and witnesses confirmed the violent nature of the incident. The appellant had a history of intoxication which spurred frequent domestic disputes. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the incident constituted a sudden fight, without premeditation, thus meriting conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The modification in charge level considered the nature of evidence and appellant's background. (Paras 41, 42)

Issues: The primary legal questions revolved around the appropriateness of applying Section 302 IPC versus Section 304 IPC considering the appellant's state of mind and circumstances of the incident. (Paras 22, 41)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of evaluating intention and circumstances leading to the act of causing death, assessing that the appellant lacked premeditated intent, thereby falling under Section 304 IPC. (Paras 20, 41)

Result: Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC with a reduced sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. (Paras 42, 43)

Table of Content
1. establishment of the facts leading to conviction (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. arguments regarding the charge levels involved (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
3. court's assessment and analysis of evidence (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 39)
4. legal standards for differentiating between charges (Para 28 , 41)
5. final judgment and order of the court (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by appellant-Dharmendra alias Chandra Prakash against a judgment and order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 336 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo additional imprisonment of one year.

Brief Facts of the case

2. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal, in short compass, are that a written report was handed over by the first informant Rohit Kumar, son of Kailash Narain at police station Uldan at 01:30 AM on 23.07.2014 that on 22.07.2017 at about 08:30 PM, his cousin Dharmendra (hereinafter referred to as the accused-appellant), son of Vishwanath Srivas, who is permanent resident of village Dhabari, police station Tahrauli, district Jhansi and is presently residing with his grand-maternal father (Nana) at village Rajpura, police station Uldan, district Jhansi. Since accused used to consume intoxicant, there had been altercations between husband and wife. On hearing the shrieks from inside the house of the appellant, when he along with Jugul Kishore and Lalta Prasad went inside the house, they saw the accused assaulting his wife-Smt Neetu Devi from sickle (Hansia) on her face and neck. The FIR further recounts that on arrival of the witnesses, accused fled away with bloodstained Hansia (sickle) and in bloodstained clothes, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. The information in respect of the aforesaid incident was communicated to the father of the deceased, who also arrived at the spot. On account of the injuries received, Smt. Neetu Devi (hereinafter referred to the deceased) succumbed to the injuries.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at Case Crime No. 80 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC, police station Uldan, district Jhansi.

4. After the registration of the first information report, the law set into motion and investigation of the case was taken up by PW-7, Inspector Satyendra Singh, who after completing necessary formalities, submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. Bloodstained sickle and bloodstained clothes of the accused were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra.

5. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No. 336 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC&ST Act, Jhansi vide order dated 15.09.2015 framed the charges against the accused- appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to him.

6. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, out of which PW-1, Rohit Kumar is the first informant of the case, PW-2, Jugul Kishore, PW-3, Lalta Prasad are the witnesses of facts, remaining witnesses are formal one.

7. PW-1, Rohit Kumar is the first informant of the case. In his examination-in-chief, he has reiterated the versions given in the FIR. He further deposed that on 23.07.2014, on the pointing out of the accused, the investigating officer recovered weapon of assault, i.e. bloodstained sickle (Hansia) and bloodstained clothes of the accused, on which he put his signature, which he proved as Ext. Ka-2 and Ka-3. He was also the witness of inquest.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top