Sustaining conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC while reducing sentence due to lack of premeditation and mitigating circumstances.

The Appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai for an incident occurring on 01.01.2018, where his wife, Kamini Kheria, was found dead on their bed with multiple injuries

The FIR was lodged by the Appellant’s father, alleging domestic discord

Witnesses PW1 and PW3 testified that both the Appellant and the deceased were intoxicated on the day of the incident

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 304-Part-II of the IPC, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellant appealed to the Gauhati High Court, not challenging the conviction itself, but seeking a reduction in the sentence based on mitigating factors like intoxication, lack of premeditation, and time already served

1. Whether the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-Part-II IPC is appropriate given the mitigating factors of the case

2. Whether the discrepancies in medical evidence and witness testimonies warrant a reduction in the quantum of punishment

Section 304-Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but without the intent to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the contradiction of witnesses using their previous statements made to the police under Section 162 of the CrPC

principle of "proportionality in sentencing" as discussed in Thakura Munda v. State of Orissa (2014), where a sentence was reduced to 7 years in similar circumstances of culpable homicide

The High Court observed that while the conviction was not disputed, several ameliorating factors were present. Witnesses PW1, PW2, and PW3 established that the deceased was frequently intoxicated and a quarrel occurred on the night of the incident, suggesting the act happened in the "spur of the moment" without premeditation

The Court noted significant contradictions between the oral testimonies and the initial statements given to the Investigating Officer (PW10); specifically, claims regarding the Appellant cutting the victim’s fingers or pushing her into a pond were found to be afterthoughts not present in the Section 161 CrPC statements

The Medical Officer (PW6) was found to have prepared the post-mortem report negligently, failing to specify the size, depth, or age of injuries, or the nature of the weapon used

Given these discrepancies and the fact that the Appellant had already served a significant portion of his sentence, the Court found it just to scale down the punishment to align with the gravity of the specific circumstances

The Court further ordered that the period of detention already undergone by the Appellant during investigation and trial be set off against the modified custodial sentence. The appeal was partially allowed and disposed of