Spontaneous road rage and efforts to save the victim warranted reducing the sentence.

The appellant, a driver travelling from Darjeeling to Tiger Hill, became involved in a road-rage altercation with the victim, another driver. During the ensuing scuffle, the appellant stabbed the victim in the chest; the victim was taken to hospital but was declared dead.

An eyewitness identified the appellant, and evidence included the appellant’s admission to others that he had stabbed the victim. The post-mortem attributed death to the injuries and described it as homicidal.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹10,000, and six months’ simple imprisonment in default. The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Whether the trial court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 304 IPC was supported by the evidence and warranted interference on appeal

Whether the ten-year sentence should be reduced in light of the circumstances of the offence and the appellant’s post-incident conduct

The court considered the offence under Section 304 IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted, and assessed whether the evidence supported that conviction.

In reviewing sentence, it considered the circumstances of the offence, including whether it was spontaneous rather than premeditated, the absence of prior enmity, the appellant’s conduct after the incident, and his incarceration and remorse.

The court found the eyewitness and other evidence sufficiently clear to sustain the conviction, and held that discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses’ accounts were not material enough to disturb the trial court’s finding of guilt.

It nevertheless considered the ten-year sentence excessive in the circumstances: the stabbing occurred during a spontaneous road-rage altercation without prior enmity, and the appellant helped take the victim to hospital after the incident. The court also noted that the appellant had served six years and was remorseful.

The appellant was held entitled to any remission available in accordance with law.

The connected application, CRAN 4 of 2026, was disposed of following disposal of the appeal.