The court noted that there was no evidence that the appellant took an unfair advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. (Reuters archives)
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol and KV Vishwanathan partially allowed the appeal filed by Devendra Singh and changed his conviction from murder under Section 302 to manslaughter not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC
The Supreme Court, hearing a case in which a man was found guilty of murder, recently reduced the charge to manslaughter not amounting to murder, noting that the nature of the weapon and the injuries on the deceased suggested the incident may have been the result of a sudden fight. .
A bench comprising BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol and KV Vishwanathan partially allowed the appeal filed by Devendra Singh and changed his conviction from murder under Section 302 to manslaughter not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC .
The court also reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.
On May 29, 1981, an FIR was filed alleging that the appellant and co-accused Yogendra Pratap Singh stabbed Parpoor Singh at a wedding ), causing him to die from his injuries.
According to the prosecution, a few days before the incident, the appellant molested the wife of the deceased's brother Dharam Pal Singh. The deceased angrily forbade the appellant to behave inappropriately towards his sister-in-law in the future and warned the appellant of the dire consequences if he did it again.
The trial court found both defendants guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The co-accused died while the High Court appeal was pending. However, the High Court upheld the judgment of the trial court against the appellant.
In the instant appeal, the Supreme Court issued notice limiting it to the question whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was convertible into Section 304 Part I or Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of all witnesses showed that there was no premeditation. The incident occurred after a heated argument broke out into a fight.
Counsel also argued that the weapon used in the crime was a pocket knife and that the knife caused one injury. She, therefore, held that the present case fell squarely within the ambit of Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC as the appellant had no intention of causing the death of the deceased.
Counsel for the Government of Uttar Pradesh contended that there was no need to interfere in this appeal as the appellant committed the offense intentionally as a result of his previous indecency with the wife of the deceased's brother and enmity arising from the deceased's questioning of him in this regard.
After reviewing the evidence, the judge noted that both defendants were injured in the incident. “Hence, the possibility of a scuffle between the two groups cannot be ruled out,” the bench said.
In the autopsy report of the deceased, the judge found that except for the injuries listed in serial number 1, which could be said to be caused by a knife, the other injuries were all scratches and contusions.
“Given the nature of the injuries suffered by the defendant and the deceased, the possibility that the incident occurred during a heated and violent fight or sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out,” the judge said.
The court noted that there was no evidence that the appellant had taken unfair advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, that the weapon used was a knife and that the injury caused by the knife was a single injury.
“Looking at the totality of the circumstances, and particularly having regard to the injuries suffered by the accused, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC,” the judge said, partially allowing the current appeal.
Stay up to date on the latest unrest in Bangladesh with our live blog.
