Read Time: 08 minutes

The Guwahati High Court recently converted a conviction for murder to culpable homicide on the ground that there was no premeditation involved in the act.

A Division Bench of  Justices Suman Shyam and Mir Alfaz Ali partially allowed the instant petition against the judgment and order rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

The facts of the present case date back to case of November 7, 2014 when a fight took place between the deceased and the accused, both of whom were employees of one Shambu Shil. The appellant had inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased with an iron rod, which caused his death. An FIR was lodged by the employer of the deceased as well as the accused/appellant under Section 302 Penal Code, 1860. According to the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. All the injuries were accessed to be ante mortem and homicidal in nature.

“PW-2 was the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of the appellant, which has been proved as Ext.2. The PW-2, the Judicial Magistrate, stated elaborately the procedure as to how the confessional statement was recorded. She also stated that having been satisfied that the accused was willing to make the confession voluntarily, she recorded the confession of the appellant. Though, this witness was subjected to cross examination, nothing material could be elicit to punch any hole in the confessional statement recorded by her.” – stated the petition.

The learned Counsel of the accused, Amicus Curiae argued that in the confessional statement, the appellant had stated that both were drunk at the time of the occurrence. Further, the confessional statement of the appellant, which was duly recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, and was corroborated by the eye witness’s accounts made it abundantly clear, that there was quarrel and fight between the appellant and the deceased and in course of the quarrel, the appellant hit the deceased with the iron rod at the heat of passion, “that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant and he inflicted the injury at the heat of passion in course of quarrel and as such, the conviction of the appellant ought not to have been recorded under Section 302 IPC. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, at best, a conviction under Section 304 Part-II could have been recorded, submits learned amicus curiae.”

The Court observed that, “the assault was made without premeditation, at the heat of passion in course of sudden quarrel and the appellant also did not take any undue advantage nor acted in cruelty, all the above factors had made the present case come squarely within the sweep of exception (4) to Section 300 IPC. However having regard to the three injuries on the head and the weapon used, it could not be said that the appellant did not has intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

Thus, taking into account the facts of the present case and the evidence in its entirety, the Bench observed that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-I instead of 302 IPC.

“It appears from the record that the appellant has been in custody for more than 14 years. Therefore, in our considered view, the period, which the appellant has already undergone in custody during investigation and trial, shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for the period already undergone. The appellant shall be released from the jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.”- ordered the court.

Case title: Debaru Majhi v. State of Assam, decided on 05-03-2021

Law point- S. 302 and S. 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Access Copy of Judgment Here