The Allahabad High Court recently overturned four convictions in a case that dates back to 1971 and fined the accused ₹5,000 after concluding that the men had been falsely convicted of murder in accordance with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the killing of a man. State v. Rajendra @Rajendra Prasad and Others
According to a division bench made up of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Vinod Diwakar, the argument between villagers occurred spontaneously while the livestock were grazing.The bench said that there was merely a quick fight sparked by passion and no premeditation.
Accordingly, under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC, the Court changed the conviction of the remaining convicts to culpable homicide that did not amount to murder.
“There is no doubt that the incident’s circumstances, the type of weaponry employed, the injuries sustained, the provocation, etc., demonstrate that the appellants did not go there with the intention of killing Balram. The conviction is changed to an offense under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC, and the court upholds the appellants’ guilt. Section 302 of the IPC is no longer to be used to convict the appellants,” the ruling stated.
One of the nine defendants in the case passed away while the lawsuit was pending. The trial court found eight people guilty in 1983 of killing Balram. The ruling was appealed by them (the appellants) back in 1983.Four prisoners passed away while the appeal was pending. The High Court rendered a ruling on the appeals of the four remaining prisoners on May 15.
Their attorney had contended that the whole thing had happened in the heat of the moment when the youngsters on both sides had called for help, resulting in an altercation.
“If the entire evidence of the prosecution is to be believed and all the defense is to be disregarded, then at the best, the case could not travel beyond the offense under Section 304 Part – II of the IPC,” it stated.
Although the Court accepted the arguments presented by the appellants’ counsel, it pointed out that an act committed in the heat of the moment is protected by Section 300 IPC’s Exception 4.
The fourth exception states that “culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
“When a hue and cry was raised, people from both sides gathered to assist the youngsters on their side. The children had gone to pasture their cattle. The incident that followed had taken place, and it happened right then and there, the Court noted.
As a result, the Court upheld the convicts’ guilt but changed their conviction to an offense under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC.
In addition, the Court chose to sentence them leniently because it has been 41 years since the trial court convicted them guilty.
“With regard to sentence, the Court finds that the appellants have suffered much and they have undergone the trauma of being convicted persons for almost 41 years and, therefore, we consider that the punishment of imposing a fine of Rs. 5000/- on each of the alive appellants would be sufficient punishment for them,” it ruled.
For the appellants, attorneys MP Yadav and PK Vishwakarma made an appearance.
For the State of Uttar Pradesh, additional government advocates Archana Singh and Mayuri Mehrotra made an appearance.
CASE NAME – Rajendra @Rajendra Prasad And Others v. State
NAME – Karubaki Mohanty, B.A.LLB, SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, BHUBANESWAR, INTER UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments