Jharkhand High Court Modifies Conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC: Absence of Severe Injuries and Lack of Direct Link to Cause of Death Leads to Appellant’s Release After Serving Nine Years for Homicide in Domestic Dispute

Court’s Decision:

The Jharkhand High Court, in this criminal appeal, modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The appellant, convicted for the death of his wife, was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 but the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was over nine years. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, based on the informant’s account, who was the father of the deceased. The informant claimed that the appellant frequently assaulted his wife and was found near the deceased’s body shortly after her death. The police, after investigation, charged the appellant under Sections 302, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder by the trial court. The defense argued that the appellant had no direct involvement in his wife’s death, and the evidence relied on was circumstantial.

Issues:

The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant could be held guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC, or if the evidence suggested a lesser charge under Section 304 Part-II IPC, given the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish direct or circumstantial evidence proving that the appellant caused the death. The appellant also questioned the absence of the doctor’s testimony to confirm whether the injuries were fatal in the ordinary course of nature. Furthermore, they contended that the injuries inflicted were not on vital parts of the body, casting doubt on the applicability of Section 302 IPC.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State defended the conviction, citing a history of marital discord, where the appellant frequently assaulted his wife. The prosecution argued that the burden shifted to the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the cause of death, as the deceased was last seen with him. The prosecution emphasized that the appellant offered no satisfactory explanation for his wife’s death.

Analysis of the Law:

The court examined the evidence under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden on the appellant to explain how his wife met her death, as they were living together at the time of the incident. The court reiterated that before applying Section 106, the prosecution must first establish foundational facts. The evidence demonstrated that the appellant was present at the scene, and no alibi was proven.

Precedent Analysis:

The court relied on the established legal principle that the burden of proof shifts to the accused in cases where the prosecution proves foundational facts that suggest the accused’s involvement. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the accused, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court noted that while the injuries on the deceased were multiple, they were primarily abrasions and contusions, without any damage to vital organs. The court held that the absence of severe injuries and the lack of a direct link between the injuries and the cause of death suggested that the case did not meet the threshold for a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The appellant’s failure to offer a reasonable explanation for his wife’s death supported a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, which applies to acts done without the intention to cause death but with the knowledge that they could result in death.

Conclusion:

The court modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC. Given that the appellant had already served over nine years of imprisonment, the court held that the sentence served was sufficient and ordered his release.

Implications:

This ruling highlights the importance of analyzing the nature of injuries and the intent behind the act in determining the appropriate section under the IPC for conviction. It also underscores the judicial requirement that prosecution must first establish foundational facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The modification of the conviction reflects the court’s balanced approach to assessing evidence in cases of domestic violence and homicide.

Also Read – Supreme Court Sets Aside Gujarat High Court’s Ante-Dated Judgment, Cites Breach of Judicial Ethics and Emphasizes Judicial Discipline