Premchand vs The State of Maharashtra

HELD:1. This is a case where it does not appear from the records that the written statement (Ext. 96) engaged the attention of both the trial court as well as the High Court. Applying the principles of law, there can be no quarrel that non-consideration of Ext. 96, to a limited extent, in relation to recording of conviction and consequently imposition of sentence, has rendered it vulnerable to interference. [Para 18][129-C-D] 2.By not looking into Ext. 96 with the other evidence on record, what the trial court omitted to consider is, whether the prosecution was justified in claiming that the offensive act amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder or whether the appellant being guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, deserved punishment under section 304, Part II, IPC. True it is, the trial court considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that (i) he had “exercised his right of private defence”, and though (ii) “he exceeded such right”, (iii) the present case at the most would fall under section 304, Part II, IPC; but, it proceeded to overrule such arguments by relying on the oral testimony of P.W.s 2 to 4. In the process, the trial court failed to appreciate the defence version as spelt out in Ext.96, which appears to us to be plausible. Reading Ext.96 as it is, this Court found it probable that there could have been provocation at the instance of the victim, who allegedly indulged in spitting on the appellant coupled with verbal abuse, whereafter P.W.2 and later P.W.s 3 and 4 sprang into action, resulting in a scuffle where both parties indulged in inflicting injuries on each other resulting in an unwanted loss of life. Regrettably, pointed attention of the High Court does not appear to have been drawn to Ext.96 by counsel on behalf of the appellant. [Paras 20 and 21][129-H; 130A-E]

3. Though there is no specific admission by the appellant that he had stabbed the victim or the other injured witnesses, reading of the contents of Ext.96 does evince an act of retaliation spurred by sudden provocation resulting in a quarrel as well as a scuffle which ultimately, most unfortunately, cost the victim his life and left some others injured. The appellant too sustained injuries in the scuffle and there is evidence on record that one of the injuries was grievous, yet, the criminal law was surprisingly not set in motion to bring to book those responsible for inflicting such injury. It was in a sudden quarrel, which could have been provoked by the victim and P.W.2, that blows followed from each side. Most importantly, the circumstances in which the incident occurred does clearly negate any suggestion of premeditation in mind. That apart, it cannot be overlooked that while the victim was middle-aged, the appellant was in his late fifties. At the time of the alleged incident, apart from P.W.s 2 and 3, other three persons who were present at the spot were not examined, as per the version of P.W.2. It is indeed improbable that in the presence of such persons, the appellant wielding a weapon like a knife would come to the spot with an intention to commit the offence of murder overpowering all of them without any sufficient reason or provocation. In this Court’s opinion, the trial court lacked in objectivity by not examining the facts and circumstances as to whether the situation was such as is likely to reasonably cause an apprehension in the mind of the appellant that there was imminent danger to his body, of either death or grievous hurt being caused to him, if he did not act in private defence. To impute intention to cause death or the intention to cause that particular injury, which proved fatal, in these circumstances seems to be unreasonable. [Para 23][131-E-H; 132-A-C]

4. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to section 300, IPC. The appellant could not be convicted for murder of the victim. His conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment are liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. However, this Court found it proper to convict the appellant under section 304, Part II, IPC. [Paras 25, 26 and 27][132-E-F]

State of U.P. v. Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336 : [1998] 1 SCR 850; Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2010)

8 SCC 249 : [2010] 7 SCR 1023; Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (2019) 13 SCC 289 : [2018] 13

SCR 1108; Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2020)

8 SCC 811 : [2020] 6 SCR 508 - referred to.