In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the case of Sita Ram vs. State of India delves into the complexities of a heated altercation leading to tragic consequences. The incident involved a confrontation between the accused Sita Ram and others against the State of India. As the legal battle unfolds, questions of premeditation, passion, and justice come to light in this gripping legal saga.
Facts
- Ram Pal (A-3) and Ram Phal (A-4) also died and the charges stood abated against them.
- The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant-Sita Ram (A-2) under Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.
- The case of the prosecution involved an incident on July 2, 1990, where injured Kala Wati (PW-19) and her husband were involved in a confrontation with Girdhari Lal (A-1 since deceased) and others.
- The High Court affirmed the conviction of Sita Ram (A-2) under Sections 323 read with 34 I.P.C. but reduced his imprisonment term and increased the fine amount to Rs. 10,000.
- The High Court dismissed the appeal of Sita Ram (A-2), affirming his conviction and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
- Girdhari Lal (A-1) objected to questioning by deceased-Mangal Singh, leading to a confrontation.
- Accused allegedly abused deceased-Mangal Singh.
- FIR registered under Sections 147, 148, 307, and 323 IPC.
- FIR subsequently altered to Section 302 IPC after the death of Mangal Singh.
- Dr. M.P. Sarangi (PW-6) conducted the post-mortem and identified fatal injuries.
- Chargesheet filed against A-1 to A-4 under Sections 325, 323, and 302 read with 34 IPC.
- Trial court convicted A-2 to A-4 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
- Brij Mohan (A-5), Rajender (A-6), and Subhash (A-9) convicted under Sections 323 read with 34 IPC.
- Accused appealed to the High Court.
- Evidence of injured witness Kala Wati (PW-19) given higher credibility.
- Brij Mohan (A-5), Subhash (A-9), and Rajender (A-6) attacked Raj Kumar (PW-9).
- Accused caused injuries to Jai Singh (PW-14), Raj Kumar (PW-9), and Leela Wati (PW-4).
- Accused used hockey stick and danda to attack deceased-Mangal Singh.
- Kala Wati (PW-19) who intervened also sustained injuries.
- Testimonies of witnesses consistent in implicating accused in the attack on deceased-Mangal Singh.
Also Read: High Court’s Decision on Large Gala Allotment Dispute: Supreme Court Verdict
Arguments
- Mrs. Bharti Tyagi, representing the appellant-Sita Ram (A-2), argued that the incident was not planned in advance.
- Only the deceased Mangal Singh and his wife Kala Wati (PW-19) engaged in a verbal altercation with Girdhari (A-1) on their way back from a tea shop to their house.
- The argument stemmed from questioning Girdhari about alleged electricity tapping, leading to the quarrel.
- The defense asserts that the entire incident was not premeditated.
- The appellant’s counsel argued that there was no premeditation for the occurrence of tapping electricity.
- The incident where the deceased and his wife questioned Girdhari happened in a heat of passion according to the appellant’s counsel.
- The appellant’s act falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. as per the argument presented.
- The Additional Solicitor General representing the State reiterated the High Court’s findings and supported the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.
- The central question is whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. can be upheld.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Analysis
- The altercation leading to the attack on the deceased arose from an argument over tapping electricity from a pole.
- The appellant, along with three others, attacked the deceased with a hockey stick and danda during the altercation.
- The appellant and other accused were not pre-armed with weapons, but picked up the hockey stick and danda during the fight.
- It is important to note that the accused did not have weapons before the altercation started.
- The incident must be committed without premeditation
- It must be committed in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
- The offender should not have taken undue advantage
- The offender should not have acted in a cruel or unusual manner
- The occurrence in this case was without premeditation and the fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
- The conviction of appellant-Sita Ram (A-2) under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
- Deceased-Mangal Singh sustained a total of nine injuries, with injuries 1 to 3 on the head and all other injuries on the hand, shoulder, arms, etc.
- The nature of the injuries sustained by deceased-Mangal Singh suggests that the appellant-Sita Ram (A-2) and other accused did not take undue advantage in attacking him.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Decision
- Conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. modified to Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
- Appeal partly allowed, with appellant-Sita Ram sentenced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.
Case Title: SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001014-001014 / 2019
