The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals filed by Sunil @ Sonu and Nitin @ Devender, altering their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Part-I of Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The Court found that the incident occurred in a sudden fight with no premeditation. Considering the appellants had already served over 8 years, the Court sentenced them to the period already undergone and ordered their immediate release.

Background of the Case

[Paras 2-3.7]

• On 28th November 2016, a violent altercation occurred between the appellants and two individuals, Rahul (PW-1) and Sachin (deceased), following pre-existing disputes.
• The appellants attacked Sachin with knives, causing severe injuries. Sachin later succumbed to his injuries during treatment.
• FIR No. 667/2016 was lodged based on Rahul’s (PW-1) statement, and charges were framed against the accused under Section 302/34 of IPC.

Trial and Conviction

[Paras 3.8-3.12]

• The trial court convicted Sunil @ Sonu and Nitin @ Devender under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while other co-accused were convicted under lesser charges.
• The Delhi High Court upheld this conviction in 2018, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Appellant’s Arguments

[Paras 5-6]

• The appellants' counsel argued the delayed filing of the FIR and inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly questioning the reliability of Rahul (PW-1) and Shivani (PW-2).
• They contended that a cross-FIR (No. 664/2016) was filed by appellant Sunil @ Sonu alleging that they were attacked by Sachin and Rahul, which explained the injuries sustained by the appellants.
• The defense argued that the incident was a result of a sudden fight and hence should be considered under Section 304 IPC rather than 302 IPC.

Prosecution’s Stand

[Para 7]

• The prosecution maintained that the evidence, including the post-mortem report and witness testimonies, conclusively proved that the appellants were responsible for Sachin’s death, justifying the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

[Paras 9-15]

• The Court noted contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses Rahul (PW-1) and Shivani (PW-2), particularly the delay in lodging the FIR and the unexplained injuries sustained by the appellants.
• The cross-FIR and medical evidence suggested that the appellants had also been injured during the incident, indicating a fight between the two groups without premeditation.

Decision and Reasoning

[Paras 16-18]

• The Supreme Court found that the incident was a sudden fight without premeditation. The appellants did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and did not take undue advantage during the altercation.
• The conviction was altered to Part-I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), with the appellants sentenced to the period already undergone.
• The appellants were ordered to be released immediately, having already served over 8 years in prison.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 302, IPC – Punishment for murder.
2. Section 304, IPC (Part-I) – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (intended to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death).
3. Section 34, IPC – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
4. Section 313, Cr.P.C. – Power to examine the accused.
5. Section 161, Cr.P.C. – Examination of witnesses by the police.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio of the case lies in the distinction between premeditated murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-I. The Supreme Court ruled that since the altercation occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation, the charge of murder could not be sustained. The appellants' actions, though leading to the death of Sachin, did not involve cruelty or undue advantage, thereby reducing the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Culpable Homicide, Murder, Indian Penal Code, Section 302 IPC, Section 304 IPC, Criminal Appeals, Sudden Quarrel, Benefit of Doubt, Supreme Court Judgment