Court Notes Nearly Three Decades Have Passed Since Incident; Injuries Appeared To Have Been Caused By Fall Into Dry Canal, Not Stone Blow
New Delhi, June 25: The Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of an accused convicted in a 1997 culpable homicide case from five years’ rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining his conviction.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli held that, on the facts of the case, the offence would fall under Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
The Court took note of the fact that the incident had occurred on 12.02.1997 and almost three decades had passed. The appellant, who was around 33 years old at the time of incident, was now over 60 years of age and had already undergone imprisonment for over one and a half years.
Background
The case arose out of an incident in which the deceased, Padam Singh Shahi, lost his life after an altercation relating to the return of a wrist watch.
As per the prosecution, about 15 days before the incident, the deceased had sold a watch to accused Manua alias Puran for ₹500. Manua was allegedly dissatisfied with the watch and went to the deceased’s house to ask him to take it back.
The matter escalated into an altercation and scuffle. The prosecution alleged that Manua, Ramu and Mathu alias Jagdish assaulted the deceased and pushed him into a dry canal. It was further alleged that Mathu alias Jagdish gave a blow on the head of the deceased with a heavy stone, causing serious injuries.
The deceased was taken to Doon Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.
Trial Court Conviction
The Sessions Court convicted Manua alias Puran, Ramu and Mathu alias Jagdish under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹2,000.
Another accused, Kaley alias Kaloo, was acquitted by the Sessions Court.
The conviction and sentence were challenged before the Uttarakhand High Court.
High Court Affirmed Conviction
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.
Thereafter, the convicted accused approached the Supreme Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, Manua alias Puran and Ramu passed away. Therefore, the appeal stood abated against them and the Supreme Court considered the case only in relation to the surviving appellant, Mathu alias Jagdish.
Evidence Before The Court
The father of the deceased, examined as PW-2, stated that after hearing quarrelling noises, he came out and saw the accused persons pushing the deceased into the dry canal. He also stated that stones were thrown at the deceased.
However, in cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the stone thrown by Kaley had hit the head of his son, while the stone allegedly thrown by Mathu had hit some other place.
PW-3, the brother-in-law of the deceased, also stated that the accused persons had pushed the deceased into the canal and that stones were thrown. However, he admitted that he had not seen the stones hitting the deceased while rushing to the place of occurrence.
PW-1, a neighbour, was declared hostile. He stated that it was Kaley who had pushed the deceased into the canal and had thrown a stone. In cross-examination, he stated that although he saw Kaley throwing a stone, he was not sure whether it hit the deceased.
Post-Mortem Injuries
The post-mortem report recorded three major injuries, including a lacerated wound on the skull and forehead with compound comminuted fracture of the underlying bone, another lacerated wound near the left eye, and a lacerated wound on the occipital region of the skull.
The Supreme Court observed that the nature and extent of the injuries indicated that they could have been suffered due to the deceased falling into the dry canal with a rock bed.
The Court noted that although the Investigating Officer stated that one stone had been seized and sent for forensic examination, no forensic report was exhibited to show presence of human blood or matching with the deceased’s blood.
Stone Blow Theory Not Plausible
The Supreme Court found the prosecution version that the present appellant caused fatal injuries by throwing stones to be doubtful.
The Court observed that the injuries were more consistent with an abrupt fall into a dry canal having a rock bed than with stones lifted and thrown by a human being.
Therefore, the Court held that the allegation that the appellant had thrown stones causing grievous injuries leading to death was not a plausible scenario.
Section 304 IPC Explained
The Court examined Section 304 IPC and observed that the provision has two parts.
Part I applies where death is caused by an act done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Part II applies where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Although the Trial Court and the High Court had not specified which part of Section 304 IPC applied, the Supreme Court held that the present case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Sentence Reduced
The Supreme Court noted that the incident originated from a dispute over return of a wrist watch and escalated into a scuffle, resulting in the deceased falling into the dry canal.
The Court further noted that almost 30 years had passed since the incident. The appellant had already undergone more than one and a half years of imprisonment and was now over 60 years old.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence from five years’ rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction.
Bail Bond Discharged
Since the appellant was already on bail, the Supreme Court discharged his bail bond.
The appeal was allowed to the limited extent of modification of sentence.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reiterates the distinction between Section 304 Part I and Section 304 Part II IPC. Where the facts show absence of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, but the act is done with knowledge of likely fatal consequences, the case may fall under Section 304 Part II.
The ruling also shows that, in old criminal appeals, the Supreme Court may consider the passage of time, age of the accused, period already undergone and the nature of the incident while modifying sentence, without disturbing conviction.