Appeal
Appeal against the conviction of life sentence confirmed by the High Court
2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 20th August 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 2019 vide which the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 30th January 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saran convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life, has been affirmed.
Facts
Appellant angered by removal of bricks assaulted the deceased with a knife after a verbal altercation
3.1 First Information Report (for short ‘the FIR’) came to be lodged by PW-5-Ranglal Yadav, who is the husband of the deceased, stating that on 9th November 2015 at around 10.00 a.m., the present appellant who was the tenant of PW-5- Ranglal Yadav came at his door, since he was annoyed with the removal of the bricks from the door. He further informed that the appellant started hurling abuses at the deceased and when she objected, he assaulted the wife of PW-5-Ranglal Yadav by means of a knife on her chest causing grievous injuries and fled from there. It is further stated in the FIR that the deceased was brought to a Doctor at Mohammadpur from where she was taken to Manjhi Hospital and during the course of treatment she died.
After investigation Trial court found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 302 IPC and the High Court confirmed the same
3.2 On the basis of the oral report, FIR No. 221 of 2015 came to be registered at P.S. Manjhi on 9th November 2015 against the appellant. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned ACJM, Chapra. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and, therefore, convicted him of the same and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
Analysis
Post-Mortem report clarifies death is homicidal
8. From the evidence of Dr. Chandeshwar Singh (PW-6) and the Post-Mortem report, we do not find that any interference is warranted with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
Prosecution proved the present appellant is responsible for the death
9. From the evidence of Lilawati Devi (PW-1), Dhannu Kumar Yadav (PW-2), Dhananjay Kumar Yadav (PW-3), Bidya Sagar Yadav (PW-4) and Ranglal Yadav (PW-5), the first informant, we find that the prosecution has proved that it is the present appellant, who is responsible for the death of the deceased.
Merely witnesses are relatives of deceased is not a ground to discard the testimony
10. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that all the five witnesses are relatives of the deceased and therefore, their testimonies should be discarded, we are unable to accept the said contention. Merely because the witnesses are relatives, cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. The only requirement is that the testimonies of such witnesses have to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
Trial court and High Court has correctly convicted the appellant
11. Perusal of all the five witnesses would reveal that though they have been thoroughly cross-examined, their evidence in examination in-chief has remained unshaken. In that view of the matter, we find that the learned trial Judge as well as the learned High Court have rightly held that it is the appellant who has caused the death of the deceased.
Whether conviction under section 302 IPC needs to be maintained?
12. Having said so, the next question that will be required to be considered is as to whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC needs to be maintained or altered to a lesser offence.
Evidence shows that there was no premeditation
13. From the evidence of the first informant, which is on similar lines to the other witnesses, it would reveal that someone had taken out a brick from the pile of bricks. Those pile of bricks belonged to the appellant. Angered by this, the appellant started abusing the wife of Ranglal Yadav (PW-5). The wife of PW-5 objected and warned the appellant not to abuse her. It is further seen from the evidence of Bidya Sagar Yadav (PW-4) that the deceased told the appellant that if he has courage, he may dare to kill her. Thereafter, the appellant assaulted the deceased with the knife.
14. A perusal of the evidence would therefore, reveal that there was no premeditation. The incident occurred on account of a quarrel that erupted between the deceased and the appellant on a trivial issue. The appellant appears to have lost his control and assaulted the deceased with the knife.
Case is of single injury
15. We find that the incident has occurred on account of a grave and sudden fight in the heat of anger due to the provocation by the deceased. A perusal of the evidence would also reveal that it is a case of a single injury. There is no evidence to show that the appellant has acted in a cruel manner or has taken undue advantage of the situation.
Conclusion
16. In that view of the matter, we find that the appellant would be entitled to have the benefit of exception under Section 300 of the IPC.
17. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The conviction of the appellant is converted from Section 302 of the IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.
(iii) The appellant has already suffered incarceration of about nine years and ten months with remission. We therefore, find that the sentence already undergone by him would subserve the ends of justice. The appellant is therefore, sentenced to the period already undergone.
(iv) The appellant is, therefore, directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. If the fine as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not paid by him, the same shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today.
Party
Hare Ram Yadav …Appellant(S) versus State of Bihar …Respondent(S)- Criminal Appeal No. 4952 of 2024 (Arising Out of Slp (Crl.) No. 14289 Of 2024) – December O3, 2024 – 2024 INSC 936.
