The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has altered the conviction of appellants in a 1986 triple homicide case from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The Court concluded that while the accused had knowledge that their actions could cause death, there was no evidence to prove an “intention to kill.”
The appeal challenged a 2013 judgment from the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the 1989 conviction and life sentence handed down by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karvi (Banda).
Case Background
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on August 6, 1986. The complainant, Ram Gopal (PW-1), along with his father Ram Avtar, and uncles Namo Shankar and Girija Shankar, went to Baruahaar Ghat to measure agricultural fields for partition. There, they were confronted by the accused appellants: Raghav Prashad, Prem Shankar, Dayanidhi, and the late Ram Naresh.
According to the prosecution, the accused, who were hiding, emerged and had an altercation with the complainant’s family over the land measurement. Following the dispute, the accused attacked the complainant’s father and uncles with pikes, sticks, and spears.
An FIR was registered initially under Sections 307 and 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The injured were taken to Karvi Hospital, where Ram Avtar and Namo Shankar died later that day. Girija Shankar succumbed to his injuries while being transferred to a hospital in Allahabad. Consequently, the charge was amended to Section 302 IPC. The post-mortem reports confirmed various ante-mortem injuries and fractures on the bodies of the deceased.
The Trial Court in Karvi (Banda), in its judgment dated November 8, 1989, found the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine. The conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Allahabad High Court on July 4, 2013, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, counsel for the appellants, argued that the prosecution’s case was based solely on the evidence of PW-1, a related witness. He further contended that the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC and, at most, could be considered a lesser offence.
Opposing the appeal, Shri Akshay Amritanshu, counsel for the State of U.P., submitted that the appellants had committed the “brutal murder of three persons.” He argued that the testimony of PW-1 was fully supported by medical evidence and that no interference by the court was warranted.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench first addressed the reliability of PW-1’s testimony. The court found “no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court that it was the accused appellants who caused the death of Ram Shankar, Namo Shankar and Girija Shankar.”
However, the central question for the Court was whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was tenable. The Court’s analysis focused on the nature of the attack and the intention of the accused. It noted a crucial detail from the testimony of PW-1 himself, observing that “even though the accused appellants were having sharp weapons (pike, spear, etc.), they had only used the blunt side of the said weapons.”
This observation was corroborated by the medical evidence, which the Court pointed out “would also show that all the three deceased persons had lacerated and contused wounds only and there were no incised wounds.”
Based on this evidence, the Court determined that the element of intention to cause death was missing. In a key passage, the judgment states, “We find that though the accused persons could be said to have the knowledge that the injuries would cause death of the deceased, there is no material on record to show that they had the intention to kill them.”
The Court also took note of the pre-existing dispute, stating, “It is further to be noted that PW-1 had himself deposed that there was prior enmity between the Appellant No. 1- Raghav Prashad and deceased Ram Avtar over the measurement of agricultural fields.”
Concluding its analysis, the bench held, “We, therefore, find that in the facts of the present case, the conviction under Section 302 IPC would not be tenable and is liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC.”
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court modified the conviction. Since the appellants had already undergone a sentence of more than 12 years, the Court found that the sentence already served would “subserve the interest of justice.” The appellants were directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
