It’s Natural For Young Man To Be Emotionally Upset To See Sister Ill-Treated By In-Laws: SC Modifies S. 304 IPC Sentence To Period Already Undergone
The Supreme Court modified the sentence of an accused under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to period already undergone by him.
The Court took note of the fact that it is natural for a young man to be emotionally upset to see his sister allegedly ill-treated by her in-laws.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “In so far Hussainbhai is concerned, what is discernible from the record is that he was a young man of 18 years of age at the time of the incident studying in Class 12. There was a history of matrimonial dispute between his sister and brother-in-law Abbasbhai. It is natural for a young man to be emotionally upset to see his sister allegedly ill-treated by her in-laws and when the deceased and Abbasbhai came to their residence leading to the ruckus, it is not difficult to visualize the state of mind of Hussainbhai as well of his father Asgarali.”
The Bench remarked that much water has flown down the river by this time and the unfortunate incident leading to the loss of a precious life and sustaining of injuries by a couple of others had happened in a spur of the moment.
Advocate Nikhil Goel appeared for the appellant/accused while Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave appeared for the respondent/State. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared for the informant.
Facts of the Case -
Onejaben was the daughter of accused no. 1 and was married. In 2000, both husband and wife came to Godhra along with their minor daughter to attend a marriage. Because of matrimonial dispute, the wife did not stay with her husband and came to the residence of her parents. Thereafter, the husband came there to take back his wife, however, the accused no. 1 (father) refused to send his daughter along with him. This resulted in a heated exchange of words between them and on hearing the hue and cry, the informant’s wife came there and asked them to stop quarrelling. However, the father pushed her due to which she fell and sustained injuries on her hand.
During this period, the husband’s father and brother rushed to the residence and the accused no. 1 caught hold of his father and the accused no. 2 i.e., his son/the appellant brought a knife. He inflicted a knife blow on the stomach of his sister’s father-in-law due to which he sustained injuries and resultantly, he died in the course of his treatment in the hospital. Hence, an FIR was registered against both the accused i.e., Onejaben’s father and brother. In connection with the same incident, a cross FIR was lodged by her father against her husband and in-laws. The Trial sentenced both the accused and convicted them. This was challenged in the High Court and it modified the judgment by altering the conviction from one under Section 304 Part I IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case said, “The trial court had convicted Asgarali and Hussainbhai under Section 304 Part I IPC as well as under Sections 323 and 324 thereof. On appeal, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order altered the conviction of both Asgarali and Hussainbhai from one under Section 304 Part I IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. While the sentence of Asgarali was modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by him, that of Hussainbhai was modified to five years.”
The Court further noted that it is quite possible that as a young man, the appellant was overcome by emotion which led him to physically attack the deceased and his son (brother-in-law).
“The fact that the incident was not premeditated is buttressed by the happening thereof inside the residence of Asgarali. Besides there was only a stab wound each on the stomach of the deceased and PW-5. The knife was not directed by Hussainbhai at the upper portion of the bodies of the deceased and PW-5. … We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the entire incident had occurred in the heat of the moment and that neither party could control their anger which ultimately resulted into the fateful incident”, it also observed.
The Court said that since the High Court had brought down the charge from Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 304 II IPC, it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant is further modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by him while maintaining the conviction.
“Therefore, while concurring with the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 06.05.2016 insofar alteration of the conviction is concerned, we are of the view that the sentence imposed upon the appellant should be altered to the period of incarceration already undergone by him. That being the position, it is not necessary to delve into and elaborate upon the other contentions raised at the Bar”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the appeal, maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC, and modified the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
Cause Title- Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 609)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Nikhil Goel, AOR Mohit D. Ram, Advocates Monisha Handa, Rajul Shrivastav, Anubhav Sharma, and Sthavi Asthana.
Respondent: Sr. Adv. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocates Devyani Bhatt, and Vaibhav Dwivedi.
