Murder conviction reduced after Patna HC finds brother’s slipper assault triggered grave and sudden provocation

Gurudeo Bind and the appellant, Nand Lal Bind, were brothers involved in a dispute concerning partition of their joint family property.

On 6 July 1996, during an altercation at the village chowk, Gurudeo allegedly assaulted the appellant with a slipper. The prosecution case was that the appellant then fired at Gurudeo from behind, causing a through-and-through gunshot injury resulting in his death.

The widow of the deceased, Rukminia Devi (P.W.7), and Anandi Bind (P.W.6) claimed to be eyewitnesses. The post-mortem examination confirmed death from firearm injury, shock, and haemorrhage.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment and five years’ imprisonment, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The appellant challenged the conviction, relying principally on contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and the defence case that Shambhu Bind was the actual assailant.

Whether the alleged inconsistency between the eyewitness account and the medical evidence regarding the direction of the firearm injury rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

Whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused prejudice to the appellant and materially weakened the prosecution case.

Whether, in view of the sudden altercation and the deceased’s assault of the appellant, the offence constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.

What sentence should be imposed upon the appellant, having regard to the period already undergone.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning murder, Section 304 Part II IPC concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed with knowledge but without intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It reiterated that ocular evidence ordinarily has greater evidentiary value than medical evidence, but medical evidence may discredit eyewitness testimony where it completely rules out the possibility of the ocular account being true; the Court referred to State of Uttarakhand v. Darshan Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 605.

It also applied the principle from Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 18 SCC 661, that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not invariably fatal and that the relevant question is whether such non-examination caused prejudice to the defence in the circumstances of the case.

Grave and sudden provocation may reduce culpable homicide from murder where the evidence establishes that the accused acted in the heat of passion following a sudden provocation, subject to the statutory exceptions to Section 300 IPC.

The Court found the testimony of P.Ws.6 and 7 substantially consistent on the material fact that the appellant fired at Gurudeo immediately after the altercation and the deceased’s assault with a slipper.

The medical evidence did not completely contradict their account: the post-mortem report recorded an inverted wound of entry on the left back and an exit wound on the front of the chest, which was consistent with a shot entering from the rear and perforating the body.

Accordingly, the principle in Darshan Singh did not assist the appellant.

The Court further held that the eyewitness evidence was not ambiguous and that the Investigating Officer’s non-examination did not create any material gap or cause demonstrated prejudice to the defence.

Nevertheless, while assessing the nature of the offence, the Court considered that the incident arose during a sudden quarrel over partition, that the deceased had publicly assaulted the appellant with a slipper, and that the appellant fired in the immediate aftermath of that humiliation.

These circumstances indicated an absence of a premeditated intention to commit murder, although the appellant must have known that firing a firearm at the deceased was likely to cause death.

The conduct therefore fell within Section 304 Part II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC.

The Court upheld the finding that the appellant caused the firearm death of Gurudeo Bind and maintained the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, but altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

In view of the appellant’s custody for 11 years, 4 months, and 11 days, the Court sentenced him to the period already undergone.

As he had completed the sentence, the Court directed that he be released forthwith, subject to there being no other criminal case or legal impediment.