In Criminal Appeal No. 1846 of 2010 -SC- Supreme Court modifies conviction from Section 304 (Part-I) to Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC; says accused did not intend to cause death but actions amounted to knowledge that it was likely to occur
Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha [29-11-2023]

Read Order: Pop Singh & Ors V. State of Madhya Pradesh

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 5, 2023: The Supreme Court has recently modified the conviction of two men accused of culpable homicide from Section 304 (Part-I) to Section 304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), finding that they had not intended to cause the death of the victim.

In the case at hand, the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, had convicted the appellants under Section 148 and Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction under Section 304 (Part-I) but reducing the sentence from ten years to seven years.

The prosecution's case involved a dispute between the accused persons and Mr. Guman Singh, the father of the deceased, Jeevan Singh, regarding the purchase of land. On 23rd April 1997, as Jeevan Singh was en route to a vegetable market in Indore to sell vegetables on his scooter, he was attacked by the appellants armed with weapons, leading to his falling from the scooter. Witnesses, including Padam Singh, Bhagwantibai, Ramesh, and Peer Mohd., observed the assault. The appellants then proceeded to threaten Guman Singh at his house. Jeevan Singh was subsequently taken to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was lodged by Padam Singh, and the appellants were arrested, leading to the seizure of weapons.

The division bench, comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, noted that there were indeed 09 injuries. However, all the injuries were lacerated wounds, and therefore, they could only be caused by the blunt side of the weapons used. The observation was made that if the appellants had an intention to do away with the deceased, nothing prevented them from assaulting the deceased with the sharp side of the weapons.

Therefore, the bench found that it could not be said that the appellants had an intention to cause the death of the deceased. However, based on the nature of injuries, it was clear that the act was done with the knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause the death of the deceased.

The bench, after careful consideration, concluded that the case would not fall under Section 304 (Part-I) but rather under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC. Consequently, the judgment and order of the Trial Court and the High Court were altered, and the conviction of the appellants was converted.

For the said offense, the Court found that 05 years of rigorous imprisonment would serve the ends of justice. Considering that the appellants had already undergone 03 years and 05 months, they were directed to surrender to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.