'No Intention': Supreme Court Reduces Jail Sentence Awarded To Man Accused Of Killing A Person For Stealing Pigeon

The Supreme Court reduced jail sentence awarded to an accused who allegedly killed a person for 'stealing' his pigeon.

The court said that the killing was not a pre-­meditated one and there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

The prosecution case was that the accused and the deceased had a sudden fight as the deceased had stolen his pigeon and in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, the co­-accused (Kehar Singh) who had rod with him, gave a blow with the rod on the right side of the head of the deceased resulting in his death. It is further alleged that, thereafter the accused and co­-accused had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the minor canal. The Sessions Court convicted both of them under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High Court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part­ I IPC and imposed the sentence of 12 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/­-.

In appeal, the accused contended that scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and that sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. That, It was not a pre­-meditated act and there was no intention at all to kill the deceased.

"It is clear from the evidence on record that the scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. It was not a pre­-meditated one and as there was no intention on the part of the appellant and co­-accused either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part ­I IPC. In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, we are of the view that it is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 Part­ II IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC. ", the bench of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed.

Modifying the conviction to one under Section 304 Part ­II/34 IPC, the court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. However, conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs.500/­-   was upheld.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment