‘Sudden Quarrel Can't Be Ruled Out’: SC Reduces Sentence From Life To Rigorous Imprisonment

Hearing a case of a man convicted for murder, the Supreme Court recently reduced the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, noting the nature of the weapon and the injury upon the deceased indicated the possibility of the incident being a result of a sudden fight.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and K V Vishwanathan partly allowed an appeal filed by Devendra Singh and altered his conviction from the offence of murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

The court also reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.

On May 29, 1981, an FIR was lodged alleging the appellant and co-accused Yogendra Pratap Singh stabbed Parpoor Singh at a wedding function, resulting in his death due to the injuries.

According to the prosecution, a few days prior to the date of the incident, the appellant had molested the wife of Dharam Pal Singh, the elder brother of the deceased. Angered, the deceased forbade the appellant from misbehaving with his sister-in-law in the future and further warned the appellant of dire consequences if he repeated his actions.

The trial court convicted both the accused of the offence of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the co-accused had died. The High Court, however, affirmed the judgment of the trial court with regard to the appellant.

In the instant appeal, the apex court issued a notice, limited to the question as to whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could be converted to either Section 304 Part-I or Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

The appellant’s counsel submitted that the testimony of all the witnesses revealed that there was no premeditation. The incident occurred in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.

The counsel also argued that the weapon used in the crime was a pocketknife and a single injury was caused by the said knife. She, therefore, submitted that the present case would squarely fall under Part-II of Section 304 IPC because the appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased.

The Uttar Pradesh government counsel argued that no interference was warranted in the present appeal, as the appellant had intentionally committed the crime on account of previous enmity arising out of his molesting the wife of the deceased’s elder brother and the deceased’s questioning him about it.

After going through the evidence, the bench noted that both the accused had sustained injuries in the incident. “As such, the possibility of a scuffle between the two groups cannot be ruled out,” the bench said.

In the post-mortem report of the deceased, the bench found that except for the injury listed at serial no 1, which could be said to be caused by the knife, all other injuries were abrasions and contusions.

“Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by both the accused persons as well as the deceased, the possibility of the incident taking place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out,” the bench said.

The court noted there was no evidence to show that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and the weapon used was a pocketknife and the injury caused by the said knife was a single injury.

“In the totality of the circumstances and, particularly, on account of the injuries sustained by the accused persons, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC,” the bench said, partly allowing the present appeal.

Catch the latest developments on Bangladesh Unrest with our live blog.