Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. From the evidence of the medical expert Dr. N.K. Yadu (PW-6), we do not find that any interference is warranted with the finding that the death of the deceased Bahal was homicidal death. The only question would be as to whether the conviction would fall for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or under a lesser offence.
11. Rajni Bai (PW-1) is the mother of the deceased Bahal. She has stated that on the date of the incident, when the deceased was showing the case related documents to Sarpanch, she saw the accused persons assaulting her son. She has also stated that the accused Devendra Kumar (Appellant No.1 herein) had assaulted her with bamboo stick. 528
12. The fact regarding the previous enmity and the ongoing dispute between the husband of Rajni Bai (PW-1) and the accused No. 1-Devendra Kumar and others has not been denied by her. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that the fight took place between her son and the appellants herein near the cart.
13. Rajni Bai’s (PW-1’s) evidence is corroborated by Dhannu Das (PW-2). He has stated in his cross-examination that his shop and the field of Devendra Kumar and others are adjacent to it. He has also admitted the fact regarding Devendra Kumar and others were cultivating the land adjacent to his shop.
14. Pusau (PW-3)-mason has also supported the prosecution version.
15. Ghurwaram (PW-4)-Sarpanch of the village has also supported the prosecution version. He has admitted in his cross-examination that when the deceased had come to him, he had read out the order of the SDO Rasandigoth and told him that he will harvest the crop of half the land.
16. In view of the credible testimony of the eyewitnesses, we have no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court as well as the High Court that it is on account of the injuries caused by the appellants that the deceased had died.
17. The next question that requires to be considered is whether the case would fall under Section 302 IPC or not.
18. It is not in dispute that there was previous enmity between the parties. The accused persons were in possession of the land in question. A month prior to the date of the incident, an FIR was lodged by the wife of the appellant No.1-Devendra Kumar against the deceased since he had tried to dispossess the appellants.
19. From the evidence placed on record, specifically the evidence of Dhannu Das (PW-2) in the presence of whom the incident has occurred, it is clear that the place of the incident is adjacent to the field in possession of the appellants. From the evidence of Ghurwaram (PW4)-the Sarpanch of the village also it is clear that there was a quarrel between the appellants and the deceased. The weapons used by the accused persons are axe and sticks, which are commonly used by the agriculturists. There is no material on record to show that there is any premeditation. [2024] 11 S.C.R. Devendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
20. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the possibility of offence being committed by the appellants without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out. From the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, it cannot be said that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
21. In that view of the matter, we find that the appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt and the conviction under Section 302 IPC needs to be altered to the one under Part I of Section 304 IPC.
22. We are, therefore, inclined to partly allow the present appeal.
23. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is altered to the one under Part I of Section 304 IPC. (iii) The appellants have already undergone a sentence of more than 12 years prior to their release on bail by the order of this Court dated 17th February 2015. We find that the said sentence would subserve the ends of justice. Therefore, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone. (iv) The bail bonds, if any shall stand discharged.
24. We place on record our deep appreciation to Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, learned Amicus Curiae for the valuable assistance rendered. Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain