Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Section 304 Part II – Reduction of conviction – Causation and medical evidence – Long pendency of criminal appeals – Age of the accused – Principle of proportionality in sentencing.

Where medical evidence does not conclusively establish a direct causal link between injuries and death, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. Sentencing must balance deterrence and proportionality, especially considering factors like old age and long pendency of the case. Appeals involving elderly accused and long delays should be prioritized for hearing to avoid unjust incarceration after decades. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, agreeing that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove that the injuries caused the death. The Court considered the long delay in the trial, the age of the accused, and the precedent set in Fatta & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1979 SCC (Crl) 629). The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the High Court was maintained.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 147 – Section 452 – Section 302 – Section 325 – Section 323 – Section 304 Part II – Section 149.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Provisions related to criminal appeals and sentencing.

Subjects:

Common Object – Culpable Homicide – Homicidal Death – Asphyxia – Post-Mortem Report – Viscera Examination – Sentencing Policy – Old Age of Accused – Delay in Appeal.

Nature of the Litigation:

Criminal Appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court’s decision reducing the conviction of the accused from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC, with the sentence limited to the period already undergone.

Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?

The State of Madhya Pradesh sought restoration of the original conviction under Section 302 IPC, contending that the High Court erred in altering the conviction and awarding a lenient sentence.

Reason for Filing the Case:

The Trial Court had convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. However, the High Court converted the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, considering the delay in death and the age of the accused. The State challenged this reduction, arguing that the injuries inflicted were grievous and fatal.

What Had Already Been Decided Until Now?

1. Trial Court – Convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

2. High Court – Converted the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced the accused to imprisonment already undergone, citing the age of the accused and the delay in death.

Issues:

a. Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC?
b. Whether the evidence on record sufficiently established homicidal death?
c. Whether the High Court erred in considering the age of the accused and the delay in the trial while sentencing?

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The injuries inflicted were severe and the accused acted with the knowledge and intention of causing death.

• Mere lapse of time between the assault and death should not be a reason for reducing the conviction.

• The punishment awarded was too lenient and did not reflect the gravity of the crime.

Respondents (Accused):

• The medical evidence did not conclusively establish that the injuries caused the death.

• The post-mortem report suggested asphyxia as the cause of death, and the viscera examination ruled out poisoning.

• The accused were elderly, and the incident was over three decades old, warranting a lenient approach.