In a recent landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India, the conviction under Section 304 of the IPC has been altered in a significant legal case. The case involved the appellants challenging the orders of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2017. Find out more about this ruling and its implications in the legal system.
Facts
- After the evidence of the prosecution was completed, one of the appellants Sunil @ Sonu (Accused No.1) denied all charges during his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
- A total of 23 prosecution witnesses and 3 defense witnesses were examined during the trial.
- Shivani (PW-2), aunt of Rahul (PW-1), intervened in an incident involving Rahul and saw a police official passing by whom she involved in the situation.
- An FIR was registered as a counterblast to an earlier FIR lodged by appellant Sunil @ Sonu, and there were allegations of an ulterior motive by Shivani (PW-2) in helping Rahul (PW-1) in the present case.
- The post-mortem report of the deceased Sachin indicated the cause of death to be septicemic shock resulting from injuries sustained to the left thigh.
- Rahul (PW-1) was initially missing but later arrived at the Police Station to give his statement.
- The accused persons were found and arrested following the incident involving the deceased and Rahul (PW-1).
- The charge-sheet was filed, and charges were framed against the accused persons for various offenses under the IPC.
- The FIR was registered against the accused based on Rahul’s (PW-1) statement narrating the incident.
- Medical examination of Rahul (PW-1) revealed abrasions and simple injuries sustained.
- The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeals filed by Sunil @ Sonu (Accused No.1) and Nitin @ Devender (Accused No.4).
- The High Court upheld the order of sentence dated 6 November 2017, where the trial court had sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
- The appellants challenged the orders of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court by filing criminal appeals before the High Court.
- The High Court, through a common impugned judgment and order, affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2017.
- The trial court, in a separate order dated 6 November 2017, sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, with a default provision of further simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Also Read: High Court of Madhya Pradesh Reverses Judgment on Charges against Accused in Assault Case
Arguments
- Shri Rishi Malhotra, Senior Counsel for the appellants, highlighted the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which was not explained by the prosecution.
- Pointed out that the FIR was filed the day after the incident, despite Rahul being present at the time.
- Mentioned that Shivani did not initially report the accused causing injuries to the deceased and Rahul.
- Referenced a prior cross FIR filed by one of the appellants before the incident.
- Contested the conviction by the trial court and the subsequent affirmation by the High Court.
- Noted that both appellants sustained severe injuries during the incident that were unexplained by the prosecution.
- Argued that Shivani, a key witness, was biased and there were material contradictions in Rahul’s testimony.
- Shri Prashant Singh, representing the respondent-State, argued that the trial court and the High Court have both correctly found the prosecution’s case proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- He further argued that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is sustainable, and there is no need for interference in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
- Shri Prashant also mentioned that the injuries sustained by the appellants were not adequately explained by the prosecution, suggesting a suppression of the real genesis of the incident.
Also Read: Joint Liability and Common Intention: Supreme Court Verdict
Analysis
- Witness tried to save deceased Sachin but was hit with a danda on his head by the accused.
- Deceased Sachin ran to save himself but was caught by the accused at the pulia and attacked with knife blows.
- Evidence shows injuries causing death of Sachin were inflicted by the appellants.
- Contradictions in Shivani’s deposition about the events.
- Possibility of offence being committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight.
- Accused Nitin pulled out a knife during the altercation.
- No interference warranted with the finding that the appellants caused Sachin’s death.
- Defence of the accused includes Sachin and Rahul being drunk and assaulting them.
- Accused ran away upon seeing a passing police official.
- The present case would be covered under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC, hence conviction under Section 302 of IPC is not tenable
- Appellants have already served a sentence of more than 8 years without remission
- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt as there is no evidence of undue advantage or cruel behavior on their part
Also Read: Land Dispute: Decree Quashed by the Supreme Court of India
Decision
- The appeals are partly allowed
- The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of IPC is altered to Part-I of Section 304 of IPC
- The appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone
- The appellants are directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case
- Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
Case Title: SUNIL @ SONU ETC. Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI (2024 INSC 727)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-003978-003979 – 2024
