“‘No Premeditation, Assault Was Sudden’: Supreme Court Converts Section 302 Conviction to Section 304 Part I in Familial Dispute Over Agricultural Land”
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court has converted a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I IPC, granting benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 IPC to the appellant. The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the appellant’s release after recording that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment of six years and ten months. The court stated that “the present case would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC.”
The decision arises from an appeal challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 10th August 2021, which had dismissed the appeal against the conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Malegaon, District Nashik. The Sessions Court had convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and fine, and under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine.
The case concerns a dispute among close relatives over the use of a common boundary between adjacent agricultural fields located in Sitane, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik.
The appellant, Sudam Prabhakar Achat, and co-accused Prabhat Deoram Achat, the deceased Motiram Deoram Achat, and the complainant Bapu Motiram Achat are all members of the same extended family. The deceased and the co-accused were brothers. The appellant is the son of the co-accused, while the complainant is the son of the deceased. Their respective agricultural lands shared a common bundh and well.
According to the prosecution, on 15th July 2009, the appellant obstructed the complainant’s access to the bundh for operating an electric pump, leading to a verbal confrontation. The complainant returned home and informed his parents. Later that day, around noon, the complainant, accompanied by his parents, approached the appellant seeking an explanation. Following the confrontation, the appellant, armed with a stick, and the co-accused, armed with an axe, physically assaulted the complainant and the deceased.
The injured complainant and deceased were taken to Government Hospital, Malegaon, by workers present at nearby fields, including Chhagan Krishna Achat (PW-1), Krishna Deoram Achat, and Sojabai (PW-7), the complainant’s mother. The complainant’s statement was recorded at 4:15 PM, leading to registration of Crime Case No.171 of 2009 under Sections 323, 326, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The deceased was subsequently transferred to Government Hospital, Dhule, where he succumbed to his injuries the same night, resulting in the addition of Section 302 IPC.
The Investigating Officer, Mahindra Ahire, prepared a spot panchnama (Exhibit 26) and arrested the appellant on 16th July 2009. Further evidence collection included inquest panchnama (Exhibit 20), seizure of the deceased’s clothes (Exhibit 21), and post-mortem report (Exhibit 15). A memorandum statement by the co-accused (Exhibit 11) led to the recovery of the axe and stick (Exhibit 12). Statements of eyewitnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Judicial Magistrate.
Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, as R.C.C. No.578 of 2009, and later committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges against the appellant and the co-accused, both of whom pleaded not guilty. Their defence was one of total denial and false implication, asserting that the deceased sustained injuries by slipping on a tin-sheet in the field.
The prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited nine documents. The accused did not present any evidence or witnesses in their defence. At the conclusion of the trial, both accused were convicted and sentenced as described.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the appeal against the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. Notice was issued in the special leave petition limited to the question of whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC could be converted to Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC. Leave was granted by order dated 2nd February 2024.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant, Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, submitted that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the testimony of relatives of the deceased. It was submitted that “the relatives of the deceased being interested witnesses, the conviction only on the basis of their testimony would not be sustainable in law.” In the alternative, she argued that “from the evidence on record, it is clear that the offence would not come under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and at the most, it would come under Part I or II of Section 304 of IPC.”
Opposing the appellant, Ms. Rukmini Bobde, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that “both the courts below concurrently, on the basis of the perusal of the evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence charged with.”
Upon reviewing the post-mortem report (Exhibit 15) and testimony of the Medical Officer (PW-4), the Supreme Court recorded, “we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding that the death of the deceased is homicidal. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that it is the appellant along with the co-accused who have caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death.”
The court addressed the issue of interested witnesses, recording that “it is however a settled position of law that merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony.” The Bench further noted that “the only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.”
Analyzing the evidence of PW-1, the court recorded, “when he returned to the field on the date of the incident, he saw that there was a quarrel going on between the accused persons and the deceased.” The testimony also recorded that “the co-accused Prabhakar was assaulting the deceased with the blunt side of the axe and the appellant was armed with a stick and he assaulted the deceased with the said stick.”
The court noted that the incident took place “on the bundh which was only 15-20 feet on the northern side of the house of the co-accused.” The Bench stated, “from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself, it is clear that the place of incident is near the house of accused persons.”
Considering the nature of the altercation, the court stated, “the possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out.” The Bench further stated, “it therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation.”
The court observed that “if their intention was to kill the deceased, there was no reason as to why the co-accused would not have used the sharp side of the axe.” It further noted that “the nature of injury and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would also not show that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.”
Applying Exception IV of Section 300 IPC, the court held that the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC but rather under Section 304 Part I IPC. The court stated, “the appellant has already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months.”
The Bench concluded by directing that “the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted to Part I of Section 304 IPC. The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar Advocate
For the Respondent: Rukmini Bobde Advocate
Case Title: Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 378
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2024
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
