CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones

Heated Clash – Convert Conviction U/S 302 To 304 Part I IPC Emphasizes: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a recent judgment delivered on October 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of the accused in a case stemming from a heated clash that resulted in injuries and a fatality. Supreme Court converted conviction u/s 302 to 304 Part I of the IPC. The court’s decision underscored the significance of evaluating the credibility of eyewitnesses in criminal proceedings.

The case, arising from a 2001 incident in Rajasthan, involved multiple accused charged with offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Notably, the accused were originally convicted under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) IPC by the trial court.

One of the critical aspects of the judgment was the evaluation of the injured eyewitness, PW-2 Rami, who was also the wife of the deceased victim. Despite lengthy cross-examination and discrepancies between her statements under Section 161 CrPC and her examination-in-chief, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of not easily discarding the testimony of an injured eyewitness.

Supreme Court stated , “Minor discrepancies do not matter. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to attach vulnerability to the evidence of the injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential.” This assertion reiterates the court’s stance that minor contradictions in the statements of an injured witness should not discredit their entire testimony.

The court acknowledged that while there were contradictions in the statements of PW-2, who was a reliable witness, these contradictions were not sufficient to discredit her entirely. It further noted that the overall circumstances of the case indicated that the incident may not have been premeditated, potentially falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Supreme Court converted the convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) and from attempt to murder to a lesser offense (Section 308 IPC). The accused were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC and three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 308 IPC.

The judgment also addressed the issue of injuries sustained by the accused, emphasizing that the evidence presented by the defense was not credible. It highlighted the suspension of a government doctor, DW-4, who testified for the defense, casting doubt on his credibility.

Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of evaluating eyewitness testimony, especially when the witness is injured. It emphasizes that minor contradictions should not lead to the wholesale rejection of a witness’s account. This judgment reinforces the principle that the credibility of eyewitnesses should be carefully assessed in criminal proceedings.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2023

BIRBAL NATH VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN &   ORS. 

 

Latest Legal News