Conviction for Murder Converted to Homicide; Sentence Set Off as Time Already Undergone and Release Ordered

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard the appeal by Sudam Prabhakar Achat challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court; the limited question before the Supreme Court related to whether the conviction under Section 302 could be converted to Section 304 (Part I or II) IPC.

The Court found that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the appellant, along with a co-accused, had caused the injuries leading to death, but it concluded that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel and lacked premeditation, warranting conversion of the conviction. The Court upheld that witnesses who were relatives could not be discarded solely for their relationship, observing that "merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony" and that such testimony "has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In that view of the matter, we find that the present case would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC. It is further to be noted that the appellant has already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months." Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, converted the conviction under Section 302 to Part I of Section 304 IPC, directed that the sentence be treated as satisfied by the period already undergone, and ordered that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Background

The dispute arose from a quarrel on 15 July 2009 between members of two closely related families over the use of a common bund and an electric pump at adjacent agricultural fields in Sitane, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and a co-accused assaulted the deceased, Motiram Deoram Achat, and the complainant, Bapu Motiram Achat, with a stick and an axe; the deceased died the same night and Section 302 IPC was added to the investigation. The Investigating Officer arrested the appellant, prepared panchnamas, seized clothes and weapons, and recorded statements of eye-witnesses under Section 164 CrPC. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and under Section 324 read with Section 34; it sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder count and two years for the grievous hurt count. The Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, and the appellant moved to the Supreme Court by special leave petition, which was limited to the question of conversion of the conviction.

Before the Supreme Court, appellant's counsel contended that the prosecution relied primarily on relatives of the deceased as eyewitnesses and that their interest rendered the conviction unsustainable; alternatively, counsel submitted that the case at best attracted Part I or II of Section 304 IPC. The State relied on the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the post-mortem report and medical evidence and accepted that the death was homicidal and that the appellant had inflicted injuries. However, on considering the nature of the weapons (a stick and the blunt side of an axe), the location of the incident near the accused's house, and the suddenness of the quarrel, the Court concluded that there was no premeditation or cruel conduct warranting conviction under Section 302. The Court noted application of Exception IV to Section 300 and observed that the appellant had already undergone six years and ten months of imprisonment. The final result: the appeal was partly allowed, conviction on Section 302 was converted to Section 304 Part I IPC, the sentence was set off against time served, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2024 (2025 INSC 378) Case Title: Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Advocate