Sudden assault and parity reasoning led to reduction from murder to culpable homicide, with equal relief for the co-accused.
On the proved facts, the Court treated the assault as a sudden and pugnacious reaction rather than murder, and altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. It noted that minor injuries on the appellant did not establish private defence. The same lesser conviction and sentence were extended to the co-accused on parity, because his role was no graver and Article 21 was invoked to avoid manifest injustice despite earlier dismissal of his proceedings. The sentence fixed for both was rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be altered to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the facts proved. (ii) Whether the same reduction in offence and sentence should be extended to the co-accused on parity of reasoning despite earlier dismissal of his special leave petition and review.
Issue (i): Whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be altered to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the facts proved.
Analysis: The dying declaration showed that the deceased first confronted the assailants with a question about a prior false arrest, and the assault occurred in circumstances suggesting a sudden and pugnacious reaction. The Court also noticed minor injuries on the appellant but found that they did not establish the right of private defence. On the overall facts, the case was treated as one where the offence was not murder but culpable homicide falling within Part I of Section 304.
Conclusion: The conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence was fixed at rigorous imprisonment for ten years, in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the same reduction in offence and sentence should be extended to the co-accused on parity of reasoning despite earlier dismissal of his special leave petition and review.
Analysis: The Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India would not permit denial of the same benefit to the co-accused when his role was no more serious than that of the appellant. Relying on the principle of parity and the need to avoid manifest injustice, the Court extended the same relief notwithstanding the earlier dismissal of the co-accused's proceedings.
Conclusion: The conviction of the co-accused was also altered to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the same sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years was awarded.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence for murder were reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and identical relief was extended to the co-accused to ensure parity and prevent injustice.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the proved facts disclose a sudden assault in circumstances falling short of murder, and a co-accused stands on the same footing, the conviction may be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the same benefit must be extended on parity to avoid manifest injustice.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
