"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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. 

 

Similar News