'No Intention To Cause Bodily Injuries; Single Blow In Sudden Provocation Proved Fatal': Allahabad HC Converts Murder Conviction To S.304 (II) IPC

The court observed that the accused's intention was to intimidate the deceased by brandishing the chhuri, and not to inflict bodily harm. However, in a moment of sudden provocation, the single blow turned out to be fatal.

While partly allowing the appeal filed by the accused (Saleem alias Sambha) challenging his conviction under section 302 IPC, a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus:

“The weapon of assault chhuri is a common item which could be found in dwelling houses, specially where selling of meat is the business. In these circumstances it could not be inferred that appellant had a pre-planned intention to kill the deceased Aziz and from the mode of occurrence it could not be inferred that the appellant had knowledge that by his act of stabbing the deceased would receive such an injury which would likely culminate in the death of the deceased.”Top of Form

Accused-Saleem was convicted under Section 302 IPC by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.

According to the prosecution's case, on January 17, 2001, informant Lukman reported to the Ghatampur police station that his maternal uncle, Aziz (Victim/deceased), and Saleem alias Sambha (accused-appellant), were engaged in the business of selling meat (gosht), sometimes separately and sometimes jointly.

It was further reported that they both had a dispute over Rs. 50. Accused-Saleem invited Deceased-Aziz to Balia's house to solve the issue. While the informant and others waited outside, Saleem stabbed Aziz in the abdomen with a dagger. After the attack, Saleem fled, brandishing the blood-soaked dagger and threatening those who tried to intervene. Aziz was taken to the hospital but died from his injuries.

The trial court, after examining and scrutinizing the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the entire material on record, concluded that there is a complete chain of evidence pointing towards guilt and the accused/appellant's complicity in the commission of said crime. Thus, the accused/appellant was convicted as aforesaid.

Challenging his conviction, the accused moved to the High Court, where the amicus curiae appointed for the accused argued that the witnesses produced by the prosecution were partisan, inimical to the appellants, interested witnesses, and not independent witnesses.

It was also contended that they are unreliable witnesses, and as such, their testimony cannot be credibly attached to it. Their deposition is also not reliable and deserves to be discarded.

At the outset, the Court noted that to prove its case, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses in support of its version. Four were the witnesses of facts, all related to the deceased Aziz, and the rest were formal witnesses. The Court said their evidence required extra caution to conclude their reliability and credibility.

In view of this, when the HC closely examined scrutiny of the testimonies of these witnesses, it noted that all the witnesses had narrated the prosecution story "in a very intrinsic and natural". Analysing their testimonies, the Court found no evidence to conclude that these witnesses were inimical to the appellant, which could prompt them to rope him in the crime.

Further, the Court noted that all the prosecution witnesses had substantiated the fact that a chhuri was used as weapon of assault by the accused appellant in causing the fatal injury to the deceased and the mode of recovery also indicated that it was only the accused-appellant who was involved in the crime.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the only question that was required to be answered was whether the appellant's conviction would fall within the scope of Section 300 IPC or whether it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC.

To answer the query, the Court reviewed the facts of the case to observe that both the deceased and the appellant were meat sellers and had a cordial relationship, with no prior threats or animosity and this fact had been confirmed by the prosecution witnesses.

“Prosecution witnesses stated that there was no enmity of any kind, between them and there was not even a remote possibility that the dispute between them could result in the commission of murder by appellant but something has occurred between them during the course of conversation and in the spur of moment and sudden provocation, appellant stabbed 'chhuri' in the abdomen of the deceased,” the Court noted as it concluded that the stabbing, occurring in a moment of sudden provocation, suggested that the accused did not have a premeditated intent to kill and may not have anticipated the fatal outcome of his actions.

In view of this, the Court opined that none of the clauses of Section 300 IPC would get attracted in the case, as the intention of the appellant to cause death or such bodily injury which he knew would cause the death of the other person or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, was not proved.

Resultantly, the Court concluded that the appellants had not committed an offence within the meaning of Section 300 IPC, i.e., 'culpable homicide amounting to murder', and rather, the offence would fall within the meaning of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" under Section 304 IPC.

On the question of whether the appellant would be guilty in Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 IPC, the Court observed that since the accused's intention was probably to pressurize the deceased and not to cause bodily injuries, thus, in view of the appellant's intention, mode of occurrence, the weapon used, and nature of the injury, his act would fall within the province of Section 304 Part II IPC.

Consequently, the Court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC (Para II) and imposed a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui

Counsel for Opposite Party: AGA Arun Kumar Pandey

Case title - Saleem alias Sambha vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 484

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 484

Click Here ToRead/Download Judgment