An 82-year-old man who remained on bail for nearly four decades must return to prison after the Allahabad High Court upheld his life sentence for the 1984 murder of his brother.
A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay dismissed the appeal filed by Babu Lal, ordering him to surrender to law enforcement authorities to serve the remainder of his term. The court declined requests to shorten his sentence to the period already undergone or to reduce the charge from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to lesser offenses such as culpable homicide or voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Lack of Extraordinary Powers
In the judgment delivered on July 17, the High Court noted that advanced age and a prolonged period out on bail do not legally justify altering a murder conviction. While acknowledging concern over sending an elderly individual back to prison after 40 years, the bench explained that it does not hold the extraordinary powers granted to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant relief on such grounds.
Intent Established by Targeted Injury
The conviction stems from an October 1984 trial court verdict that found Lal guilty of fatally assaulting his brother with a sabri, an agricultural digging tool. Defense counsel argued that because the implement was a farm tool rather than a dedicated weapon and was used from its blunt side, Lal lacked the specific intention to kill his brother. The defense urged the court to evaluate the offense under Section 325 of the IPC for causing grievous hurt or Section 304 Part II for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The appellate court rejected the defense’s argument, ruling that the absence of a traditional weapon does not disprove murderous intent. The judges stated that intention is determined by the vital parts of the human body targeted during an attack, combined with the perpetrator’s knowledge that striking those areas with such an implement would cause injuries that ordinarily result in death.
No Evidence of Sudden Fight
The court further noted that the evidence on record showed no indication of a sudden fight or grave provocation that could warrant modifying the murder conviction. Finding no mitigating circumstances on record, the bench affirmed the trial court’s original judgment in full.
