Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals against the conviction of Sunil @ Sonu and Nitin @ Devender under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Sachin. The prosecution's case was that on 28 November 2016, the appellants along with two others attacked Rahul (PW-1) and Sachin with knives and dandas following a verbal altercation. Sachin died due to septicemic shock from a thigh injury. The trial court and the High Court convicted the appellants for murder. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution proved the homicidal death. However, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants in the same incident, which indicated suppression of the real genesis. Additionally, there was an unexplained delay of over 24 hours in lodging the FIR. The Court held that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the single fatal blow did not indicate an intention to cause death. Applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Failure to Explain Injuries on Accused - Where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence, the genesis of the incident is suppressed, and the accused may be entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the intention to cause death. In the present case, the appellants had sustained injuries in the same incident, and the prosecution did not offer any explanation, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution suppressed the real genesis. (Paras 13-17) B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - Alteration from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - The incident occurred on the spur of the moment during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. The single fatal blow inflicted on the deceased, coupled with the absence of common intention to cause death, brings the case within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. (Paras 18-20) C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in Lodging FIR - Unexplained Delay - The FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the incident, and the explanation given by the prosecution was found to be implausible. Such delay, when unexplained, casts doubt on the prosecution's case. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is sustainable in light of the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and the delay in lodging the FIR, and whether the offence falls under Section 304 IPC instead.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part. It upheld the finding that the appellants caused the homicidal death of Sachin. However, it altered the conviction from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each, with the period already undergone set off under Section 428 CrPC. The fine imposed by the trial court was set aside.
Law Points
- Failure to explain injuries on accused
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Interested witness
- Common intention
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
