Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has extended the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the appellant-accused, acknowledging the possibility that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment due to sudden provocation. The Court ruled out premeditation and altered the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part-I of Section 304 IPC.

Background

A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the appellant's plea challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000 by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. The prosecution alleged that on March 19, 1985, the deceased, a B.Sc. student, was studying on a rooftop when the appellant, Ajai Kumar, called him downstairs. Soon after, witnesses heard the deceased crying out, “Dada ana, mujhe mar dala.” Upon rushing downstairs, they saw the appellant inflicting knife injuries on the deceased. The appellant was apprehended and handed over to the police, while the injured victim was taken to the hospital. However, he succumbed to his injuries before reaching S.N. Hospital, Agra. Both the Trial Court and the High Court relied on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Supreme Court's Observations

The Supreme Court noted that there was no direct evidence regarding what transpired before the assault. While the prosecution suggested a motive related to a dispute over a girl, the eyewitnesses denied this claim. The Court also took into account that the appellant and the deceased, both aged around 20-21 years, had cordial relations and often helped each other with studies. Ruling out premeditation, the Bench held: “From the evidence, as placed on record, it is difficult to come to a finding that the appellant had come with a premeditated mind to kill the deceased. The possibility of an altercation taking place between the appellant and the deceased for some reason and the appellant assaulting the deceased in the heat of passion on account of a sudden fight, cannot be ruled out.” Further, the Court observed: “The possibility of the incident occurring in the spur of the moment and the appellant assaulting the deceased on account of sudden provocation, due to 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.”

Verdict

Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court altered the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part-I of Section 304 IPC. Considering that the appellant had already served eight and a half years in prison, which with remission amounted to over ten years, the Court found that the sentence served was sufficient. Accordingly, it directed his immediate release unless he was required in any other case.

Cause Title: Ajai Kumar Chauhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 INSC 140 

Date: January-29-2025

Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice K. Vinod Chandran

[Read/Download order]