In a recent development, the Supreme Court has partly given an application of appeal of Devendra Singh; to reduce the participant in the offense of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The case dates back to 1981, when both the accused persons, Avtar Singh and Yogendra Pratap Singh, went to the wedding function and stabbed Parpoor Singh, who later succumbed to it.
The accused is convicted of offences of murder carrying a penalty of death, simple rioting which attracts a three years imprisonment and causing grievous bodily injury which has a penalty of two years imprisonment.
Initially, the trial court had acquitted both the accused for murder and had awarded a life sentence for it.The accused is convicted of offences of murder carrying a penalty of death, simple rioting, which attracts a three years imprisonment, and causing grievous bodily injury, which has a penalty of two years imprisonment.
However, the bench of the apex court, which consisted of Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and K V Vishwanathan, seemed to look into such circumstances and evidence related to the occurrence. The court observed that at one point, the accused had injuries and thus the likelihood of some form of fight or scuffle.
Even more, during the autopsy, it was noted that apart from the harm caused by the knife, the deceased had abrasions and contusions only. Consequently, the court thought that the occurrence of the incident might not have been a premeditated act of murder but one arising from heat triggered by anger over a quarrel.
The court also considered the type of weapon in a person’s pocket, which was a pocket knife, and the fact that an injury was inflicted with such a weapon was only one. Given these considerations, the bench concluded that while the circumstances of the case did not justify a culpable homicide charge in the first degree, under Section 299 of the IPC, the matter would be best tried under Section 304 Part I of the IPC which addresses murder not amounting to culpable homicide or manslaughter.
Therefore, the court has brought down the outrageous life imprisonment that was given to Devendra Singh to eight years of rigid imprisonment. Specifically, the court imposed that the appellant has a right to Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which relates to the case of a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
This decision also emphasizes that the analysis of evidence and the circumstances of a criminal case should be comprehensive to make appropriate charges and prescribe the corresponding sentences. The Supreme Court’s judgement shows its awareness of the completeness of such an incident and the need to exercise appropriate justice to it.
