Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304 Part I, 300 exception IV, 302 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Alteration of conviction to a lesser offence – Testimony of related witnesses – Reliability – Quarrel on account of previous enimity between the accused persons and the deceased who were brothers – Upon confrontation, the co-accused and his son-appellant became aggressive, and the co-accused armed with axe and the appellant armed with stick assaulted the deceased and his son-complainant, resulting in injuries to them – Deceased succumbed to his injuries the same night and the complainant succumbed to his injuries, a month later – Order of conviction and sentence of the accused u/ss.302/34 and 324/34 by the courts below – Correctness: Held: No reason to interfere with the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal, and it was the appellant along with the co-accused who caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death – All the witnesses are related to the deceased – Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony – Testimony of such witnesses to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection – Possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out – Weapons used are stick and the blunt side of the axe, easily available in any agricultural field – Thus, cannot be said that there was any premeditation – Appellant is alleged to have used the stick whereas the co-accused is said to have used the blunt side of the axe – If their intention was to kill the deceased, no reason as to why the co-accused would not have used the sharp side of the axe – Nature of injury and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would also not show that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner – Thus, the case would not fall under the ambit of s.302 and the appellant is entitled to benefit of exception IV of s.300 – Conviction u/s.302 converted to Part I of s.304 – Appellant having already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months, sentenced to the period already undergone. [Paras 7-15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.