Conviction Modified from Murder to Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

This appeal arose from the judgment passed by the High Court of Patna, wherein the High Court upheld the conviction of the appeallant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence him for life imprisonment. The appellant, Hare Ram Yadav, was convicted by the Trial Court for having committed the murder of his landlord's wife.

On analyzing the surrounding circumstance of the incident, the Apex Court observed that the dispute began on a trivial issue of a missing brick from the pile of the appellant. From the evidence, particularly from the first informant PW-5, it appears that he was infuriated and began abusing the victim. The appellant, not being able to bear this, had attacked her with a knife. The Court held that this was a case of a sudden fight without premeditation. The Court also held that the provocative factor was the statement made by the victim, as stated by PW-4, that she dared the appellant to kill her.

The Supreme Court recognized that appellants argued that the five identifying witnesses were related to the victim and, thus, had a motive to lie. However, the Court pointed out that "relationship and consanguinity do not ipso facto discredit a witness.". While such testimonies have to be scrutinized with care, the Court held that even after a searching cross-examination the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW3, PW-4, and PW-5 remained consistent, unshaken, and showed that the appellant caused the death of the victim. However, except for this oral testimony of the above eye-witnesses, nothing else has been brought on record to implicate the appellant. He submits that even the alleged knife which is stated to be used in the crime has not been recovered.

The Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the act is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The Court held that, being provoked by the words and acts of the victim, the appellant lost his self-control and attacked her. The single injury inflicted, and the absence of evidence showing cruelty or exploitation of the situation, further supported this exception.

The Court, after analyzing the testimony of Dr. Chandeshwar Singh (PW-6) and the post-mortem report, agreed with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature. In the ultimate analysis, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. While confirming the finding of the courts below that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of the victim, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Part I of Section 304 IPC.

In light of the appellant having undergone a lengthened period of sentence of roughly nine years and ten months, the Court felt this would amount to adequate punishment for him. The appellant was thus directed to be released insofar as the present case is concerned unless required in any other case.

Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. Between: Hare Ram Yadav vs State of Bihar Date of Judgement: 03-12-2024