2026 Supreme(All) 651

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ. 
Sohan Lal Alias Sohanpal and others - Appellants 
Versus 
State of U.P. - Respondents 
Criminal Appeal No. 3499 of 1984 
Decided On : 11-05-2026

A conviction for murder may be converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC where the evidence demonstrates a sudden, spontaneous conflict arising from a property dispute, lacking premeditation or a specific intent to cause death, despite the application of vicarious liability.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 304 (Part II), 323, 324, 325 - Right of private defence - Offence against human body and property - Conviction and sentence - Modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Evidence of injured and related witnesses - Non-explanation of simple injuries on accused - Reliability of eyewitness testimony - Where evidence clearly establishes that an incident arose from a sudden quarrel over property without premeditation and intended to inflict a single fatal blow rather than commit murder, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable and liable to be converted to Section 304 Part II IPC. (Paras 76, 78, 80, 81)

(B) Evidence Act - Testimony of relative witnesses - Credibility and reliability - Relationship of a witness to the victim is not a ground for rejection of testimony - Unless there is evidence of enmity or bias, the testimony of related witnesses, especially when they are injured, is entitled to significant evidentiary value - Mere fact of relationship is not a basis to discredit a witness if the account is consistent and trustworthy. (Paras 49, 52)

(C) Right of Private Defence - Limits of force - In circumstances of sudden escalations, a person under assault cannot be expected to modulate defence with arithmetical precision - However, the right of private defence ceases once the threat is averted or the aggressor is no longer in danger - Excessive force used after the cause of apprehension has disappeared cannot be justified under the plea of self-defence. (Paras 69, 70, 71, 74)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted by the trial court for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including murder, stemming from a dispute over agricultural land. The prosecution alleged that the appellants collectively assaulted the victim’s party, who were protecting their crops during a ploughing incident. The defence claimed the appellants acted in the exercise of their right of private defence of property, noting that some appellants sustained injuries during the altercation which were not adequately explained by the prosecution.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the prosecution’s evidence was reliable and that the injured witnesses’ presence could not be doubted. The lack of explanation for the appellants’ superficial injuries did not undermine the prosecution case, as those injuries were simple in nature. The court concluded that the incident occurred as a result of a sudden quarrel regarding property. Given the lack of premeditation and the use of a single fatal blow, the conviction for murder was converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the plea of private defence, and whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was appropriate given the circumstances and evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: Though the appellants sought to invoke the right of private defence, the evidence showed they were the aggressors and failed to prove the necessity or proportionality of their actions. However, the absence of prior intent to kill and the nature of the occurrence—a sudden, spontaneous conflict without pre-planning—necessitated that the conviction be modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part II IPC, with sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.