The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that mere vague allegations of abuse without specific particulars do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While setting aside the conviction of three appellants under this section, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad, partly allowed their criminal appeal in a 1993 homicide case, modifying their life sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a judgment dated October 15, 2001, passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli, in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 1995. The Trial Court had convicted the appellants—Bhullan (since deceased), Surajpal, Brijlal, and Jagatpal—under Sections 304/34, 325/34, 504, 323/34, and 506(2) of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for the primary offence.
The prosecution’s case was that an old land dispute existed between the complainant, Lalla Prasad, and the accused persons. On March 4, 1993, at around 8:00 PM, the complainant, his father Jageshwar (deceased), and witnesses Om Prakash and Hari Prakash were returning to their village, Asharafpur, from Nasirabad. Near the Mattan Nala bridge, the accused persons, armed with lathis and dandas, intercepted them and launched an assault.
Jageshwar sustained multiple fractures and serious injuries, succumbing to them on March 6, 1993, at the District Hospital, Raebareli. The injured witnesses, Om Prakash and Hari Prakash, also sustained fractures and other injuries.
Arguments Raised
The counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction was based on “mere presumption” and that the appellants had been falsely implicated due to enmity. It was contended that since the incident occurred at night with no source of light, identification was impossible. The defence also raised the issue of non-examination of independent witnesses (villagers) and alleged contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, specifically regarding the nature of the weapons used.
Regarding the charge under Section 504 IPC, it was argued that the essential ingredients were absent from the prosecution evidence.
Opposing the appeal, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submitted that the testimony of the injured witnesses was trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence. The State argued that the motive was established through the land dispute and that the conviction was legally sound.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. Ruling on Section 504 IPC: Specifics Required The Court set aside the conviction under Section 504 IPC (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace). Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. and Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench observed that the prosecution failed to specify the words used or prove the requisite intention.
“Mere use of abusive or discourteous language, without disclosure of its nature and without proof of the consequential provocation envisaged by law, does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 504 IPC.”
The Court noted that neither the complaint nor oral evidence disclosed the specific words allegedly used, nor did it describe the nature or context of the abusive language to show it would provoke a breach of peace.
2. Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses The Court rejected the argument that the prosecution’s failure to examine independent villagers vitiated the case. Citing Supreme Court precedents including Hem Raj v. State of Haryana and Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, the Bench observed:
“The prosecution is not required to multiply witnesses, and mere non-examination of all persons cited in the FIR or present at the spot does not ipso facto cast any doubt on the prosecution case. What is essential is the quality, and not the quantity, of evidence.”
3. Medical vs. Ocular Evidence Addressing the defence’s plea regarding discrepancies in the nature of injuries (blunt vs. sharp), the Court found no material contradiction. The Court accepted the medical opinion that the injuries were consistent with lathi blows and a forceful fall on a hard surface. The Bench noted:
“It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when the ocular testimony of trustworthy witnesses is fully consistent with and duly corroborated by the medical evidence, the prosecution case stands significantly strengthened.”
4. Identification in Moonlight The Court took judicial notice that the date of the incident, March 4, 1993, fell on ‘Ekadashi of Shukla Paksha’, ensuring sufficient moonlight. It held that since the accused were known to the witnesses, identification was natural.
5. Section 304 IPC vs Section 325 IPC The Bench upheld the conviction under Section 304 IPC (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder) rather than downgrading it to Section 325 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt). The Court stated:
“The distinction between Section 325 IPC and Section 304 IPC lies not merely in the nature of injuries but in the knowledge and likelihood of death resulting from the act… The nature, number and gravity of injuries inflicted on the deceased, including multiple fractures, clearly demonstrate that the assault was deliberate and brutal.”
Decision and Sentence
The High Court affirmed the conviction of appellants Suraj Pal, Brij Lal, and Jagat Pal under Sections 304/34, 323/34, 325/34, and 506(2) IPC, while acquitting them of charges under Section 504 IPC. However, considering that the appeal had been pending for over two decades and the appellants were now of advanced age, the Court modified the sentence.
- Sentence Modified: The life imprisonment awarded under Section 304 IPC was reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
- Fine Enhanced: The fine of Rs. 2,000 was enhanced to Rs. 20,000 for each surviving appellant. The total amount of Rs. 60,000 is to be distributed equally as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, Jageshwar.
- Surrender Ordered: The appellants were directed to surrender within 15 days to serve out the sentence.
The appeal on behalf of the first appellant, Bhullan, stood abated as he passed away during the pendency of the appeal.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bhoolan and Ors. v. State of U.P.
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 2001
- Coram: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad
- Counsel for Appellants: Shishir Pradhan, Kunwer Dhananjay Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
- Counsel for Respondent: Govt. Advocate, Onkar Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Uma Kant Gupta
