Section 304 Part II IPC: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in 1997 Death Case
Supreme Court reduces sentence in fatal defective watch dispute case.
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for causing the death of another person during a fight over the sale of a defective watch in 1997. However, considering the circumstances of the case and the passage of nearly three decades, Court reduced his sentence from five years' rigorous imprisonment to the period of over one-and-a-half years already undergone.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Arun Palli held that the case falls under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [corresponding to Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], which applies where death is caused with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Why did the Supreme Court apply Section 304 Part II IPC?
Court explained that Section 304 IPC has two parts. The first part applies where death is caused with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and carries a punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to ten years along with fine.
The second part applies where death is caused with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury.
"Considering the evidence on record, though the trial court as well as the high court has not specified as to which part of Section 304 IPC is attracted, nonetheless we are of the view that it is Part II of Section 304 IPC which is applicable in the facts of this case," the Bench observed.
The appeal was filed by Mathu alias Jagadish against the Uttarakhand High Court's July 25, 2012 judgment, which had affirmed the Dehradun trial court's 2002 decision convicting him. The appeals of the two other accused, Manua alias Puran and Ramu, stood abated after they died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
How did a dispute over a watch lead to a death?
According to the prosecution, around 15 days before the incident on February 12, 1997, the deceased, Padam Singh Shahi, had sold a watch to Manua alias Puran for ₹500. Dissatisfied with the watch, Manua went to Padam Singh's house to return it.
The dispute soon escalated into an altercation and a scuffle. Ramu and Mathu alias Jagdish allegedly joined Manua in assaulting Padam Singh, who was standing near the edge of a dry canal.
Also Read| 'No Cruel or Unusual Conduct by Appellants': SC Converts Conviction from S 302 to S 304 IPC
The prosecution alleged that during the assault, the three accused pushed Padam Singh into the dry canal and that Mathu alias Jagdish struck him on the head with a heavy stone, causing injuries that resulted in his death.
Why did the court reduce the sentence?
After examining the prosecution evidence and witness testimonies, the Supreme Court found that the injuries suffered by the deceased were consistent with his fall into the dry canal, which had a rocky bed.
"It is evident from the nature and extent of the injuries that those could only have been suffered by the deceased because of his fall into the dry canal with a rock bed," Court observed.
The Bench held that the prosecution's allegation that the appellant had thrown stones at the deceased, causing the fatal injuries, was "not a plausible scenario".
Court also took note of the fact that the incident occurred on February 12, 1997. At the time, the appellant was 33 years old, but by 2026 he was well over 60. It further considered that the altercation had its genesis in a dispute over the return of a defective watch, which escalated into a scuffle, ultimately leading to the deceased's fall into the canal.
The Bench observed that all the injuries on the deceased's face and skull had occurred because of the fall into the rock-bed canal. Since the appellant had already undergone imprisonment for over one-and-a-half years, Court held that reducing the sentence would meet the ends of justice.
"At this distant point of time, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if we alter the sentence of imprisonment from RI for five years to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction," the Bench said, partly allowing the appeal.
Case Title: Mathu @ Jagdish Vs State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal 2024 of 2012)
Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Arun Palli
Date of Judgment: June 25, 2026