In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has modified a conviction in a decade-old murder case, reducing the charge from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. The court emphasized that the “possibility of a sudden fight in the heat of passion” could not be ruled out in the incident that led to the death of Gopal Bhosale in 2014.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in Criminal Appeal No. [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 13920 of 2024], arising from Maharashtra. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court and whose conviction was upheld by the Bombay High Court.
Background
The case dates back to the night of March 21, 2014, in Satara district, Maharashtra. According to the prosecution, the appellant Sunny @ Santosh Bhosale had a heated argument with the deceased, Gopal Bhosale, over a loan dispute. Witnesses reported that the appellant, armed with a bamboo stick, assaulted the deceased after a verbal altercation outside the house of one Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5).
The assault left Gopal Bhosale with fatal head and facial injuries, and he was declared dead upon arrival at the Rural Hospital, Khandala. An FIR was promptly lodged by Sharad Bhosale (PW-4), leading to the appellant’s arrest. The trial court convicted Sunny @ Santosh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the Bombay High Court in 2020.
Arguments Presented
Senior Advocate D.N. Goburdhun, representing the appellant, argued that the case was one of sudden provocation and not premeditated murder. He pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies and suggested that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment. The appellant’s defense maintained that the use of a bamboo stick, a commonly available object in villages, further indicated the absence of intent to kill.
On the other hand, Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, representing the State of Maharashtra, countered that the testimonies of eyewitnesses, including the deceased’s wife Sunita Bhosale (PW-6), established the appellant’s guilt. He argued that the circumstantial evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the evidence, including the testimonies of key witnesses. The bench noted discrepancies in the accounts of the events leading to the assault and emphasized the absence of premeditation or motive to kill.
The court observed:
“The possibility of the deceased following the appellant and an altercation taking place between them, leading to the assault in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, cannot be ruled out.”
The judgment highlighted that the weapon used—a bamboo stick—was not indicative of a preplanned attack. The medical evidence, coupled with the lack of motive, further supported the view that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court ruled to partially allow the appeal, making the following orders:
1. Conviction Reduced: The conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
2. Sentence Served: The court noted that the appellant had already undergone over 12 years of imprisonment, including remission, and declared this period sufficient for the modified conviction.
3. Release Ordered: The appellant, who was out on bail since October 2024, was ordered to be released immediately, and his bail bonds were discharged.
Eyewitness Testimonies
The case relied heavily on the accounts of eyewitnesses. Sunita Bhosale (PW-6), the deceased’s wife, recounted that her husband intervened during the appellant’s verbal abuse of another family. She stated that the deceased followed the appellant after the initial scuffle, leading to the fatal assault.
Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5), a relative, corroborated her testimony but admitted in cross-examination that key witness Mangesh Bhosale (PW-3) was far from the scene of the crime, raising questions about his account. Despite these contradictions, the court found enough evidence to hold the appellant responsible but determined that the act did not constitute murder.
