Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, modified the conviction of the appellant from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC), citing that:
- The incident occurred during a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without premeditation.
- The appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner.
The life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court was reduced to imprisonment already undergone—six years and 17 days—with a fine of ₹5,000. The court ordered that the appellant be released immediately, provided he was not required in any other case.
Facts
The prosecution alleged that the appellant was having an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased.
- On September 12, 2017, the deceased had gone to Nanded for work and returned home around 10:00 PM.
- When he found his wife missing, he went in search of her but did not return home.
- His brother, suspicious about his absence, called his mobile.
- He heard the ringtone near the appellant’s house and found the deceased lying injured in front of the appellant’s house.
- The village Sarpanch was informed, who then called the police.
- The police arrested the appellant and the wife of the deceased, who was later acquitted.
Medical Evidence
The post-mortem report confirmed that the deceased had suffered multiple injuries:
- Incised wound on the chest, penetrating the right lung, which caused haemorrhagic shock and cardio-respiratory failure (fatal injury).
- Incised wound on the posterior superior iliac area.
- Bruises and abrasions on the face and nose.
These injuries indicated a scuffle between the deceased and the appellant.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the circumstances supported a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
- Whether the conviction should be sustained based on circumstantial evidence, given that there were no eyewitnesses.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant, through his counsel, challenged the murder conviction on the following grounds:
1. Circumstantial Evidence and Lack of Direct Proof
- The case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence.
- There were no eyewitnesses who saw the appellant committing the crime.
- The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was at the crime scene at the time of the incident.
2. Doubts Over Recovery of the Knife
- The knife was recovered nine days after the appellant’s arrest, casting doubts on its evidentiary value.
- The Chemical Analysis (CA) report showed human blood on the knife, but it did not conclusively prove that it was used in the crime.
3. Call Data Records (CDR) Contradicted Prosecution’s Claim
- The brother of the deceased claimed he had called the victim’s mobile phone before discovering his body, but the CDR showed no such call.
4. Appellant Had Injuries, Indicating a Scuffle
- The appellant had multiple injuries, including a head wound requiring stitches.
- The medical report confirmed that these injuries were caused by a hard object, like a brick.
- This indicated that a fight had taken place, and the deceased may have attacked the appellant first.
5. Alternative Plea: If Convicted, Punishment Should Be Under Section 304 Part II IPC
- The appellant’s injuries suggested that the fight was spontaneous and not premeditated.
- Even if the prosecution’s case was accepted, the act would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 IPC (murder).
- He relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including:
- Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 4383 – Presence at the crime scene alone is insufficient for conviction.
- Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725 – Falsity of defense does not establish guilt unless prosecution proves a complete chain of evidence.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Maharashtra)
The prosecution argued that strong circumstantial evidence proved the appellant’s guilt:
1. Circumstantial Chain of Evidence Was Complete
- The deceased’s body was found right outside the appellant’s house.
- Bloodstains were found inside the appellant’s house, suggesting that the fight started indoors.
2. Appellant Provided a False Explanation for His Injuries
- The appellant initially claimed he had fallen from a motorcycle, but medical evidence confirmed his injuries were caused by an attack.
3. The Illicit Relationship Provided Motive
- The deceased’s wife and the appellant were allegedly in a relationship, which gave the appellant a strong motive to commit the crime.
Analysis of the Law
Since the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the court applied Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which held that circumstantial evidence must:
- Be fully established.
- Be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
- Be of a conclusive nature.
- Exclude every other hypothesis except guilt.
- Form a complete chain leading to the accused.
The court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case:
- Motive was not conclusively proved, as no witness had directly seen an illicit relationship.
- The knife’s recovery was delayed, creating reasonable doubt.
- The deceased had attacked the appellant first, indicating a sudden fight rather than a premeditated murder.
Precedent Analysis
The court referred to Anbazhagan v. State, AIR 2023 SC 3660, which distinguished intent from knowledge in homicide cases. The judgment emphasized:
- If an act is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, it does not amount to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
- Failure to explain injuries on the accused does not automatically imply guilt.
The court also relied on Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 1459, which held:
- The prosecution must prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt.
- Even if the accused does not provide a full explanation, the burden remains on the prosecution.
Court’s Reasoning
- The appellant had injuries, suggesting that the deceased attacked him first.
- The fight was sudden and unplanned.
- The attack was not calculated or excessively brutal.
- The knife’s discovery was questionable.
Thus, the court ruled that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which states:
“Culpable homicide is not murder if committed in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, without undue advantage.”
Conclusion
- Murder conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside.
- Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide).
- Sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone (six years, 17 days).
- Fine of ₹5,000 imposed; appellant ordered to be released immediately.
Implications
- Strengthens precedent for differentiating between murder and culpable homicide.
- Reaffirms that circumstantial evidence must meet strict legal standards.
- Emphasizes the importance of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Reiterates that mere presence at a crime scene does not imply guilt.
- Ensures proportional punishment based on the facts and circumstances of the case.