The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has partly allowed a jail appeal, altering the conviction of an appellant from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad, observed that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on March 27, 2009, in District Pratapgarh. The complainant, Ram Bodh Yadav (PW-1), reported that his daughter, Sunita, had been murdered by her husband, Dev Bahadur alias Matru Yadav (the appellant), with an axe at approximately 6:00 AM. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who was reportedly addicted to intoxicants, frequently quarreled with and beat his wife.
The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pratapgarh) convicted the appellant on October 27, 2010, under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of the couple’s 12-year-old daughter, Shalu (PW-2), who claimed to have witnessed the assault while warming herself near a bonfire.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellant, appearing as Amicus Curiae, argued that the prosecution’s case was unreliable due to material contradictions, specifically noting that the FIR appeared ante-timed. He further contended that the sole eyewitness, PW-2, was not mentioned in the FIR and her statement was recorded with significant delay. Crucially, the defense argued that the act was committed in the “heat of passion” during a sudden quarrel between husband and wife, without premeditation, thus falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The learned AGA for the State countered that the testimony of the child witness, PW-2, was reliable and inspiring of confidence. He maintained that the nature of the injuries on vital body parts established a clear intention to cause death, justifying the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court conducted a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence. Regarding the child witness (PW-2), the Bench noted that while child testimony requires “careful and cautious scrutiny,” it found her to be a natural witness whose core testimony was corroborated by medical evidence.
However, the Court identified several infirmities, including the inconsistency in the FIR timing and the absence of PW-2’s name in the initial report. On the nature of the offense, the Bench observed:
“The occurrence took place inside the house and arose out of a quarrel. There is no material on record to suggest any premeditation or prior planning. The weapon used appears to have been picked up at the spot during the course of the incident.”
The Court explicitly discussed and applied the principles from Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory (1989), Pundalik v. State of Maharashtra (2010), and Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019). It concluded that all four conditions for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC were satisfied: the occurrence was sudden, there was no premeditation, the act was done in the heat of passion, and the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner.
The Court held:
“The medical evidence does not indicate such excessive or barbaric assault so as to conclusively infer that the accused acted in a cruel or unusual manner or took undue advantage. The act appears to have been committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.”
The Decision
The High Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. Noting that the appellant had already undergone incarceration for 18 years, 7 months, and 11 days (as of December 16, 2025), which far exceeds the maximum 10-year term for Section 304 Part II, the Court held the period already undergone as sufficient sentence.
The Bench directed the appellant’s immediate release:
“The accused-appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.”
Case Details
Case Title: Dev Bahadur Yadav @ Matru Yadav vs. State of U.P.
Case No.: Jail Appeal No. – 212 of 2011
Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad
Date: May 4, 2026
