Knife Never Found, Depth of Wounds Unknown: Delhi HC Refuses To Upgrade Stabbing Conviction From Grievous Hurt To Attempt To Murder 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Belongs To Kamdhenu, Not Ashiana: Delhi HC Finds 2002 Agreement Was A Licence, Not An Assignment — Grants Injunction Against Steel Rival Land Acquired In 2004 At ₹19,660/sq.m — Company Can Now Claim ₹1,30,000/sq.m After Neighbour's Plot Gets That Rate: Delhi HC Allows Amendment After 16 Years State Used Eminent Domain to Hand Over 53 Acres to a Non-Existent Company: Karnataka High Court Quashes Acquisition, Orders CBI Investigation Trademark | Passing Off Action Requires Only Likelihood Of Confusion, Not Strict Proof Of Counterfeiting: Madras High Court Buyer Failing To Pay Full Amount On Time Cannot Sustain Cheating Case If Seller Transfers Property To Third Party: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Arbitrarily Deviate From Merit-Based Posting SOP For Senior Resident Doctors: Calcutta High Court Ready Reckoner Rates Cannot Form Sole Basis For Determining Land Acquisition Compensation: Bombay High Court MACT Cannot Decide Personal Accident Claims of Vehicle Owners: Madras High Court Sets Aside Rs. 15 Lakh Award Specific Performance | Sale Agreement to Cheat Stamp Duty Is Void, But Buyer Still Gets Money Back: Madras High Court Higher Degree Cannot Substitute Essential Work Experience; Preference Operates Only Among Eligible Candidates: Supreme Court Legal Representatives Aggrieved By Arbitral Award Must Challenge It Under Section 34 Arbitration Act, Not Article 227: Supreme Court Advocates Can’t Use Press Conferences To Scandalise Judges; Grievances Must Be Ventilated Through Legal Remedies: Supreme Court Property Register Entry Not Proof Of Ownership: Supreme Court Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Put To Trial By Litigants: Delhi High Court Dismisses Recusal Pleas Of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia & Others

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