"‘Serious Doubt Whether Even Section 304 Applies’: Supreme Court Cites Medical Uncertainty, Declines to Reinstate Murder Conviction in 36-Year-Old Case"
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which modified the conviction of the respondents from Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code to the second part of Section 304 of the IPC. The Three Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih recorded that the medical evidence placed on record gave rise to “a serious doubt whether even Section 304 of the IPC could have been applied, as the medical opinion does not support the theory of homicidal death of the deceased.” The Bench declined to disturb the findings of the High Court, considering both the medical findings and the extended passage of time since the occurrence of the incident.
The Court took note of the circumstances considered by the High Court, including the age of the respondents, who were over seventy and eighty years of age at the time of the High Court’s judgment, and the duration of over two decades that had elapsed since the date of the offence. The respondents were left to serve the sentence already undergone and were directed to pay fines. The Court also referred to broader issues concerning the delay in disposal of criminal appeals where accused persons are on bail and the necessity to balance such cases with other pending matters.
The matter arose from an incident that occurred on 1 November 1989 at around 4 pm in Chhatarpur district, Madhya Pradesh. The respondents were accused of gathering unlawfully and assaulting six individuals, namely PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar), PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11 (Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev), and the deceased Laxman. According to the prosecution, the incident stemmed from an allegation that PW-1 had cut the tail of a buffalo belonging to the respondents. The prosecution claimed that the accused initially attacked PW-1, PW-3, and PW-11 while they were working in the field. PW-1 fled, following which the respondents forcibly dragged PW-2, PW-12, and the deceased from their homes and assaulted them.
PW-1, PW-3, and PW-11 sustained simple injuries. PW-2 suffered a fracture of the ulna bone of the right hand, and PW-12 sustained fractures to the radius and ulna bones of the left hand. The deceased Laxman was initially treated by doctors and discharged but was later admitted to the district hospital in Chhatarpur on 2 November 1989 after experiencing vomiting, headache, and dizziness. He was discharged on 15 November 1989 but experienced further complications while returning home, was re-admitted to Chandla Hospital, and passed away the same night.
The Trial Court convicted the respondents under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The respondents were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 and were also given separate sentences for other offences to run concurrently.
On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court converted the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 to the second part of Section 304 IPC. The conviction for other offences was confirmed. The High Court noted that the incident occurred over two decades earlier, the accused had remained on bail, and their ages at the time of judgment were advanced, ranging from seventy to eighty years. The High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 16,000 each, directing that Rs. 1,00,000 be paid to the family of the deceased and Rs. 10,000 each to PW-12 and PW-2 as compensation.
The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses and PW-17, Dr. Baburam Arya, who had treated the deceased. The Court recorded that Laxman suffered injuries, including a lacerated wound on the skull, swelling on the forearm, and lacerations on various parts of the body. PW-17 stated that the deceased complained of nausea and vomiting on 2 November 1989 and was referred to the district hospital.
The post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was asphyxia and noted that the “cause of death could not be ascertained.” The viscera report from the State Forensic Laboratory dated 27 January 1990 indicated that “any chemical or poison was not present in the viscera.” Dr. Arya also stated in his testimony: “Laxman had died due to suffocation. It was difficult to give a definite reason.” The Supreme Court observed that neither the post-mortem report nor the medical testimony established that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased directly resulted in his death.
In addressing the submissions of the State, the Court recorded the argument that the attack was brutal, with over thirty-five injuries collectively inflicted on the victims, including serious injuries to the deceased’s occipital bone. The State contended that “only because there was a time gap of fifteen days from the date of assault to the date of death of the deceased, it cannot be said that the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was not proved.” The State also submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court was inadequate considering the gravity of the offence and cited precedent from Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v. State of Gujarat on proportional sentencing.
On behalf of the respondents, counsel drew attention to the High Court’s reasoning, stating that the injuries inflicted were simple in nature and lacked the intent required for a conviction under Section 302 IPC. Counsel further submitted that “since the incident was of the year 1989 and since all the accused were 70 to 80 years old, the High Court imposed the punishment to the extent already undergone.”
The Supreme Court noted that “the appeal against conviction remained pending for twenty-one years” and that the respondents had remained on bail during this period. The Court remarked that “the incident is almost thirty-six years old” as of the date of its decision.
The Supreme Court concluded that it would not be appropriate to interfere with the High Court’s judgment. The Bench recorded: “Therefore, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.” The respondents remained liable to pay the fines as imposed.
The Court added: “A substantial amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed by the High Court by way of fine.”
The Court did not modify the sentence of the respondents beyond the High Court’s judgment and declined the appellant’s request to restore the original conviction under Section 302 IPC.
In a concluding note, the Court addressed systemic concerns regarding criminal justice administration. The Bench observed that while priority is often given to appeals where accused are in custody, “a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail.” The Court observed that deferring the hearing of appeals where the accused are on bail for extended periods may create complications in the enforcement of sentences if such appeals are ultimately dismissed.
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 377
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1254 of 2024
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
