The Supreme Court found that the prosecution did not successfully demonstrate any premeditation. As a result, the conviction was changed from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court has changed the conviction of a defendant from Section 302 of the IPC to Part I of Section 304 of the IPC, noting that the prosecution completely failed to demonstrate any premeditation. The Court partially accepted the appeal against the Bombay High Court’s decision, which had confirmed the conviction and life sentence given by the Trial Court. The defendant was found guilty of murder under Section 302 of the IPC for allegedly beating the victim on the face and head with a bamboo stick, leading to his death. Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan stated, “As discussed earlier, the prosecution has completely failed to prove any premeditation… Therefore, we believe the appellant deserves the benefit of the doubt. The conviction under Section 302 IPC should be changed to Part I of Section 304 IPC… Thus, we are inclined to partially allow this appeal.”
Senior Advocate D.N. Goburdhun represented the appellant, while Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari represented the respondent. According to the prosecution, the accused entered a home where the victim and his wife were present. The accused reportedly began to insult two other individuals, prompting the victim to step in. The prosecution claimed that the accused then attacked the victim with a bamboo stick, causing fatal injuries. The accused contended that the incident arose from sudden and serious provocation during a quarrel with the victim. Therefore, it was argued that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC should not stand and should be reduced to a lesser charge.
The Supreme Court observed that eyewitness accounts indicated the accused arrived at the house unarmed, and medical evidence pointed out that the injuries were inflicted with a bamboo stick, a common item in villages. The Court suggested that it was possible the deceased confronted the appellant, leading to a sudden fight fueled by passion, which could explain the assault. Additionally, the Court noted that the type of injuries did not indicate that the appellant acted with excessive force or cruelty. As a result, the Court changed the appellant’s conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC. The appellant had already served over 9 years in prison, and with remission, this totaled more than 12 years before being released on bail on October 4, 2024. The Court concluded that this time served was sufficient for justice. Thus, the appeal was partly granted.
Cause Title: Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 878)
