DEEPAK vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW UTTARAKHAND)

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL   NO.545 OF 2011 DEEPAK ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  (NOW UTTARAKHAND)      ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. The   Appellant assails the reversal of his acquittal, and consequent conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. sentencing him to life imprisonment.   2. On 27.08.1993 at about 8.30 a.m., irked by the loud Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2018.08.01 10:57:53 IST Reason: noise of the tape recorder being played by the deceased in 1 his house, the Appellant had a verbal altercation with the deceased which culminated in a single sword blow by the Appellant in the rib cage area of the deceased. 3. The M.L.C. of the injured was done at 8.45 a.m. by PW.8 Dr. S.K. Prabhakar who found an incised wound of 2½ cm x 2 cm.   The injured was deceased the same day. The post mortem was done the same day at 3.30 p.m. by PW­5 Dr. P.K. Bhatnagar, who found  “Punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep just above upper border of the left lower rib on lateral side of chest 9 cm away from umbilicus at 2 O’clock position with surgical dressing”. 4. The Trial Court granted the benefit of doubt to the Appellant.   The   High   Court   on   reappreciation   of   the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW­4 Omwati, an injured witness, and other eye­witnesses PW­1 Babu Ram, PW­2   Ram   Kumar   and   PW­3   Kalu   Ram,   convicted   the Appellant.  2 5. We   have   considered   the   submissions   made respectively on behalf of the parties. The trial court has laid exaggerated   emphasis,   by   erroneous   appreciation   of evidence,   on   minor   omissions   and   contradictions   in   the evidence   of   PW­1,   PW­2   and   PW­3   so   as   to   doubt   the veracity   of   the   entire   prosecution   case   without   any discussion of the injured eye witness PW­4.  The High Court upon reappreciation of the evidence has correctly held that the evidence of PW­4 stands corroborated by the other three prosecution witnesses.  6. It is  manifest from the  evidence  of  the  prosecution witnesses   that   the   Appellant   and   the   deceased   lived opposite   each   other   across   the   road.   Their   houses   were separated by a distance of approximately 20­25 feet by the road   in­between.  The   genesis  of   the   occurrence  was  the 3 loud   playing   of   a   tape   recorder   in   the   house   of   the deceased, objected to by the Appellant.  A verbal argument ensued.   The Appellant rushed across to his house, came back   with   a   sword   and   delivered   a   single   blow   to   the deceased   in   the   rib   cage   area   and   then   ran   away threatening to see him later.  The entire altercation is stated to have lasted for 1½ to 2 minutes. 7. On consideration of the entirety of the evidence, it can safely be concluded that the occurrence took place in the heat of the moment and the assault was made without pre­ meditation at the spur of time.  The fact that the Appellant may have rushed to his house across the road and returned with a sword, is not sufficient to infer an intention to kill, both   because   of   the   genesis   of   the   occurrence   and   the single assault by the Appellant, coupled with the duration of the entire episode for 1½ to 2 minutes.  Had there been any   intention   to   do   away   with   the   life   of   the   deceased, 4 nothing   prevented   the   Appellant   from   making   a   second assault to ensure his death, rather than to have run away. The intention appears more to have been to teach a lesson by the venting of ire by an irked neighbour, due to loud playing of the tape recorder.  But in the nature of weapon used, the assault made in the rib cage area, knowledge that death was likely to ensue will have to be attributed to the Appellant.   8. In   the   entirety   of   the   evidence,   the   facts   and circumstances of the case, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and are satisfied that it deserves to be altered to Section 304 Part­II I.P.C.  It is ordered accordingly.  Considering the period of custody   undergone   after   his   conviction,   we   alter   the sentence to the period of custody already undergone.  The Appellant may be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 5 9. The   appeal   is   therefore   allowed   in   part   with   the aforesaid modification of the conviction and sentence.  …………...................J. [RANJAN GOGOI] …………...................J. [R. BANUMATHI] …………...................J. [NAVIN SINHA] NEW DELHI AUGUST 01, 2018 6