Supreme Court Alters Conviction From Murder To Culpable Homicide And Directs Release After Time Served

A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed the appellant’s challenge to his conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment arising from an incident dated 19 March 1985.

The Court partly allowed the appeal and altered the conviction. It found that the prosecution failed to establish the offence within the meaning of Section 300 IPC and that the circumstances permitted application of Exception 4 to Section 300. The Bench observed that what preceded the assault "has not been witnessed by any of the witnesses" and noted the youth and cordial relations between the parties. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Based on the discussion above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring the case within the meaning of Section 300 of the IPC. The possibility of the incident occurring in the spur of the moment and the appellant assaulting the deceased in the heat of passion on account of a sudden fight between them cannot be ruled out. We find that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. As such, the conviction of the appellant under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC would meet the ends of justice." The Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC and directed that the appellant be released forthwith if his detention was not required in any other case, noting that he had already undergone more than ten years’ custody (with remission) which the Court found would "sub-serve the ends of justice."

Background The prosecution case was that on the evening of 19 March 1985 the appellant called the deceased, Rajeev, downstairs from a rooftop and subsequently caused knife injuries to him; the deceased was taken for medical treatment but died before reaching S.N. Hospital, Agra. Three eyewitnesses (PW.2 Pradeep Kumar, PW.3 Desh Raj and PW.4 Amar) testified that they heard the deceased cry and saw the appellant assaulting him; they restrained the appellant and handed him to the police. Medical evidence (PW.1) recorded two stab wounds on the deceased, including a chest wound.

At trial, the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine. The Allahabad High Court, by its order dated 3 May 2018, dismissed the appellant’s criminal appeal. The appellant approached this Court by special leave petition.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel, Shri Ravindra Singh, contended that the prosecution case suffered from lacunae, including absence of blood stains at the alleged place of occurrence and lack of motive, and alleged false implication. Counsel for the State, Shri Vikas Bansal, relied on testimony of eyewitnesses and asserted a motive arising from a dispute involving a girl.

The Bench noted that the antecedent events to the assault were not witnessed and that both the appellant and the deceased were young students — "both the appellant and the deceased were young boys aged about 20-21 years" — with cordial relations. Applying these factual findings to legal standards, the Court concluded that premeditation was not established and that the incident could have occurred in the heat of the moment during a sudden fight. The Court followed established principles on Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and accordingly converted the conviction to Part I of Section 304 IPC. The appeal was therefore partly allowed; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 140 Case Title: Ajai Kumar Chauhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Ravindra Singh, learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Vikas Bansal, learned counsel for the State