Nothing On Record To Establish That There Was Any Pre-Meditation: Supreme Court Alters Murder Conviction To Part-I Of Section 304 IPC
The Supreme Court has altered murder charges against the accused to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC observing that there is nothing on record to establish that there was any pre-meditation.
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “As such, we find that the possibility of the offence being committed by the appellants without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner…In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. We find that the present case would be covered under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC and as such, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC would not be tenable.”
Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra represented the appellant, while Advocate Prashant Singh appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution had alleged that there were pre-existing disputes between the deceased victim and the accused. One day, the parties got into a verbal altercation, after which the the accused allegedly caught hold of the victim and started attacking him with knives and dandas.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court.
The accused submitted that since the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused as well during the incident, the prosecution had suppressed the real genesis of the incident. It was therefore submitted that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would not be sustainable and the same would be at the most under Part-I or II of Section 304 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court stated that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries which were sustained by the deceased were caused by the accused and said the injury was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased.
The Court then noted that the FIR was registered very late after the incident took place. “There is a possibility of deceased Sachin and Rahul coming to the shop of Satish and a fight taking place between the two groups. There is nothing on record to establish that there was any pre-meditation,” the Court remarked.
“The appellants have undergone the sentence of more than 8 years without remission. We are therefore inclined to partly allow the appeals,” the Court held.
Consequently, the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC was altered to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC by the Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sunil @ Sonu Etc. v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 727)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra; Advocates Ambuja, S. Maini and Utkarsh Singh
Respondent: Advocates Prashant Singh, Sharath Nambiar, Ayush Anand, Vinayak Sharma, and Kartikeya Asthana; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria
