Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently converted the conviction of a man from the offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, finding that there was no premeditation and the possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the moment could not be ruled out.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih partly allowed an appeal filed by Sudam Prabhakar Achat against the Bombay High Court division bench judgment of August 10, 2021, which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of December 5, 2012 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Malegaon, District Nashik, convicting him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

According to the prosecution Bapu Motiram Achat (complainant), Motiram Deoram Achat (deceased), Sudam (appellant) and Prabhat Deoram Achat (co-accused) were all residents of Sitane, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik. The deceased and the co-accused were brothers. Their agricultural fields were situated adjacent to each other with a common boundary and a common well. Further, the complainant was the son of the deceased and the appellant was the son of the co-accused. 

On July 15, 2009, a fight ensued between both the parties over irrigation of land, the co-accused armed with an axe and the appellant with a stick assaulted the deceased and the complainant. The complainant and the deceased both sustained injuries but the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

The trial court convicted the appellant and the co-accused and the high court confirmed it.

On their challenge, the apex court issued a notice limited to the question as to whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could be converted into Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC.

After hearing the counsel and perusing the post-mortem report and the evidence of the Medical Officer, the bench said, "We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding that the death of the deceased is homicidal. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that it is the appellant along with the co-accused who have caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death".

After holding the appellant and the co-accused liable for the death of the deceased, the bench examined whether the prosecution had proved its case that the offence committed by the appellant would come under the ambit of Section 302 IPC or it could be altered into a lesser offence.

The court noted all the witnesses were related to the deceased and as a matter of fact, the deceased and the complainant on the one hand and the accused persons on the other hand were also closely related to each other inasmuch they were first cousins.            

It is however a settled position of law that merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinised with greater caution and circumspection, the bench pointed out.

The court referred to the testimony of a witness Chhagan Krishna Achat, the nephew of the deceased that co-accused Prabhakar assaulted the deceased with the blunt side of the axe and the appellant did so with the said stick. Motiram died when he was taken to the Government Hospital, Dhule. The other injured person Bapu Motiram succumbed to injury about a month after the date of incident.  

"It is clear that the place of the incident is near the house of the accused persons. The possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out. It can further be seen that the weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of the axe. These tools are easily available in any agricultural field. It therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation," the bench said.   

The court also noted that the appellant was alleged to have used the stick whereas the co-accused the blunt side of the axe. 

"If their intention was to kill the deceased, there was no reason as to why the co-accused would not have used the sharp side of the axe. The nature of injury and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would also not show that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner," the bench said.

The court thus found that the present case would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC. It sentenced the appellant to the period of 6 years 10 months, already undergone by him, and ordered his release forthwith, if not required in any other case. 

Case Title: Sudam Prabhakar Achat Vs State of Maharashtra