Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta, Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, partly allowed a criminal appeal filed by two brothers who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the death of a family member during a dispute over the care of their aged parents. Concluding that the fatal assault arose from a sudden quarrel without prior planning, the Court held that the offence did not attract Section 302 of the IPC and instead fell within the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, modifying the conviction and limiting the sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone.

The appeal arose from a judgment of conviction whereby the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine for offences under Sections 302, 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case was that the appellants and the victims were brothers among six siblings whose father had distributed his immovable properties equally. A dispute subsequently arose regarding responsibility for maintaining their parents. A meeting was convened at the ancestral house to resolve the issue. During the meeting, an altercation ensued. The appellants allegedly left and returned within minutes armed with sharp cutting weapons and assaulted two brothers, resulting in the death of one and injuries to the other.

Also Read: Cooperation With Investigation Does Not Mean Self-Incrimination: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Despite Accused's Refusal To Surrender Mobile Phone

An FIR was registered under Sections 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Statements of key witnesses were recorded, including one under Section 164 CrPC. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the wife of the deceased and medical evidence detailing multiple cut and blunt injuries, including injury to the lung. The Investigating Officer acknowledged that certain witness statements emerged during trial and that seized weapons were not produced before the medical officer.

The Court observed that “There are some discrepancies between the witnesses for the prosecution as regards the exact place of occurrence.” It recorded that such discrepancies could be discounted in view of the familial nature of the property.

On the evidence of the key witness, the Court stated that “Apart from the aforesaid inconsistency, the rest of her evidence in course of trial is consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.” It further recorded that “Despite the aforesaid discrepancies referred to hereinabove and the lapses on the part of the IO, this Court based on the medical evidence and the evidence of PW 2 is of the clear view that the incident of assault by the appellant on the deceased victim and PW 9 has in fact occurred at the date and time mentioned.”

While examining whether the offence fell under Section 302 IPC, the Court observed, “The appellants were not carrying weapons when they arrived at the PO to take part in the settlement talks.” It added, “Thus, any premeditation on part of the appellants stands clearly ruled out.”

Referring to the short interval between departure and return, the Court stated, “The 3 minute time gap between the departure of the appellants and their arrival at the PO is not enough for cooling down the nerves.” It further stated, “The said period is too short for a cold-blooded decision to murder a person.”

On the nature of injuries, the Court recorded that “The deceased victim may have survived if he had been brought to the hospital early.” It also stated, “The said dissimilar treatment creates a doubt in mind of this Court as to whether the appellants at all intended to kill the victims.”

Ultimately, the Court observed, “This Court is therefore of the view that the crime committed by the accused persons including the appellants would fall under the first part of Section 304 of the IPC.”

The Court directed that “The appellants are thus held convicted under Section 304’ part I for a period of 14 years and/or to the extent that they have already suffered incarceration. The appellants are hereby held convicted under Section 304’s part I for a period of 14 years and/or to the extent that they have already suffered incarceration. The fine imposed on the appellants shall also stand set aside.”

Also Read: Right To Travel Not Absolute In Economic Offences Where Accused Settles Abroad And Evades Investigative Process: Calcutta High Court Refuses Relief To Ex-Pharma Employee In ₹1300 Crore SFIO Fraud Probe

“The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 and other sections shall stand set aside. The appellants shall now be set at liberty unless they wanted in connection with any other offense and upon execution of a bond upon execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court, which shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. CRA 480 of 2012 is, therefore, is allowed in part and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Arindam Jana, Mr. Sumanta Das, Mr. Yuvraj Chatterjee, Mr. Saikat Guin, Mr. Akash Sarkar

For the Respondents: Mrs. Faria Hossain, ld. A.P.P., Mr. Anand Keshari

Case Title: Aimuddin Sheikh & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal
Neutral Citation: 2026: CHC-AS:286-DB
Case Number: C.R.A. 480 of 2012
Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta