Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has ordered release of a man after 17 years of incarceration by converting his conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reducing his sentence from life term to seven years imprisonment for causing death of second wife in 1999 following a quarrel after consuming liquor with her.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that the accused Kariman can at best be attributed with the knowledge that the injury of the nature which he inflicted upon Dasmet Bai (deceased) was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. 

Thus, the act of the accused is covered under Part II of Section 304 IPC, the bench said.

The court noted admittedly, the appellant and the deceased were living together as husband and wife by virtue of prevailing customary practices. 

"From a perusal of the statements of the eyewitnesses, it is evident that the accused appellant was seen chasing Dasmet Bai (deceased), said to be his second wife. However, the genesis behind the incident was not divulged by any of the prosecution witnesses," it found.

The court also noted the first information report was lodged by Budhram, the uncle of deceased Dasmet Bai. He did not utter a single word in his evidence that his niece who was living with the appellant was ever treated with cruelty by the accused. It was admitted by the witness in cross examination that both the accused as well as Dasmet Bai (deceased) used to consume liquor. 

"It is thus, apparent that the appellant had no motive to hurt the deceased and some sudden quarrel had flared up between the accused and Dasmet Bai (deceased) which led to the incident," the court said.

The bench also said as per the admitted case set out in the evidence of the eyewitnesses, when the accused was chasing Dasmet Bai (deceased), he was unarmed. It is only after Dasmet Bai (deceased) had fallen down, that the accused picked up a stone lying nearby and gave a blow thereof to the deceased. 

The court also referred to statement by medical jurist who found one bruise admeasuring 10 cm X 8 cm on the left side of the body of the deceased resulting into the fracture of one rib. The said fractured rib caused laceration of the spleen. The cause of death was opined as shock due to internal bleeding.

"Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can be it accepted that the accused had the intention to cause injury/injuries to the victim with the intention or knowledge that the same would result into her death. The act of the accused is not covered by any of the four clauses contained in Section 300 IPC," the bench said.

After finding that the Medical Jurist did not express opinion that the single injury caused to the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the bench said, "Hence, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the accused as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court for offence under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable in facts as well as in law."

Having noted that the appellant has already undergone sentence for about 17 years, the bench did not impose any fine upon him. 

"The appellant is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case," the bench said, partly allowing the appeal. 

The petitioner was represented by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria acting as free legal aid counsel.

In the case, the court condoned delay of 2461 days in filing the special leave petition on behalf of the accused petitioner.

The court noted that the accused petitioner was prevented from filing the special leave petition in time because he was not aware regarding the legal procedure and no guidance provided to him in jail. 

"While being incarcerated in jail, the petitioner came to know about legal aid being provided by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and accordingly, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and consequently, a free legal aid counsel was appointed by the Committee to defend the petitioner and to file the special leave petition on his behalf," the bench said.