In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has altered the conviction of Ajai Kumar Chauhan 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 observed that the incident was not premeditated but rather a result of a sudden fight.
A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 9115 of 2018, arising from a verdict by the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had upheld Chauhan’s conviction and life sentence awarded by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 390 of 1985. The Supreme Court, however, found that the prosecution failed to prove premeditation, warranting a lesser charge.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to March 19, 1985, when the deceased, Rajeev, a B.Sc. student, was attacked by Ajai Kumar Chauhan. As per the prosecution, Rajeev was studying on his rooftop when Chauhan called him downstairs. Shortly afterward, witnesses heard Rajeev cry out, “Dada ana, mujhe mar dala” (Brother, come, I have been killed).
Eyewitnesses Pradeep Kumar (PW-2), Desh Raj (PW-3), and Amar (PW-4) rushed to the scene and saw Chauhan stabbing Rajeev. The accused was caught on the spot and handed over to the police. The weapon used—a knife—was later recovered from a water tank inside a cold storage.
Rajeev sustained two stab wounds—one on his stomach and another near his chest, as confirmed by Dr. A.K. Garg (PW-1). Despite immediate medical attention, Rajeev succumbed to his injuries while being transported to S.N. Hospital, Agra.
Key Legal Issues
1. Premeditation vs. Sudden Fight:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the attack was planned or a result of an altercation. The prosecution had initially argued that Chauhan acted with motive—allegedly due to issues involving a girl. However, the Supreme Court noted that none of the eyewitnesses confirmed this motive.
2. Eyewitness Credibility:
The trial court and High Court relied heavily on the testimony of PWs 2, 3, and 4. The defense, represented by Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh, argued that bloodstains were not found at the alleged crime scene, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case.
3. Application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC:
The Supreme Court determined that there was no pre-planned intent to kill. Instead, the evidence suggested an altercation that escalated in the heat of passion. Thus, the court ruled that the case fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which applies to culpable homicide committed without premeditation in a sudden fight.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The bench ruled that:
– “It is difficult to come to a finding that the appellant had come with a premeditated mind to kill the deceased.”
– “The possibility of an altercation taking place and the appellant acting in the heat of passion cannot be ruled out.”
– “The incident occurring in the spur of the moment entitles the appellant to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.”
Based on these observations, the Supreme Court:
Converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Acknowledged that the accused had already served over 10 years (including remission).
Ordered his immediate release if not required in any other case.
