Allahabad High Court Sends 82 Y/O Murder Convict Back To Jail After 40 Yrs; Says It Can't Reduce Sentence By Invoking Article 142

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay found that the evidence on record did not disclose any mitigating circumstances warranting conversion of the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC (Murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder).

While rejecting the appellant's plea to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone, the Court observed that it could not extend such relief merely because the appellant was now 82 years old and had remained on bail during the pendency of the appeal for nearly four decades.

The Court observed thus:

“The evidence adduced did not reflect a sudden and grave provocation or sudden fight account of which the Court may examine the possibility of setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and hold the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part (II) IPC There is no such mitigating facts available to scale down from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part (II) IPC.”

The Bench further added that though it was disturbed that the appellant would have to go back to jail after 40 years, the Court could not do much, as it doesn't possess the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Case in brief

The appellant (Babu Lal) was convicted by the trial court in October 1984 for causing the death of his brother by repeatedly assaulting him with a sabri, an object used for agricultural digging.

Before the High Court, his counsel inter alia argued that the appellant had been accused of using an object which is not used as a dedicated weapon and was further used from the blunt side, which reflected that he had the intention to kill the deceased.

It was contended that even if the prosecution case is taken in its entirety to be true and proved beyond reasonable doubt, the only offence for which the appellant could have been held guilty of and punished was for an offence under Section 325 IPC (causing grievous hurt).

High Court's observations

Rejecting the contention, the Bench said that the intention to commit murder cannot be determined merely by the nature of the weapon used.

"The intention to commit murder cannot be dismissed only on account of nature of weapon used More particularly the intention is to be adduced by that part of human anatomy which was targeted by the assailant coupled with the knowledge also a part of mens rea that the use of the article to target a vital part of the human body would cause grievous hurt which in the ordinary course of nature may result in death or will result in death", the bench observed

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court noted that the ferocity of the attack on the victim disclosed the intention of the accused person to cause death. It noted thus:

"…he arrived there surreptitiously concealing the weapon from behind the deceased in order to ensure that the deceased did not even get a fighting chance or an opportunity to exercise his right of private defence".

It further noted that the appellant repeatedly targeted the head of the deceased, which clearly showed his intention, which was not merely to cause hurt to the deceased. The bench added that if that was the intention, the appellant could have struck any non-vital part of the body.

The Court also rejected the appellant's submission that the prosecution case was weakened because one of the material witnesses had not been examined.

Referring to settled criminal law principles, the Bench observed that the best evidence rule has no application in criminal jurisprudence.

It explained that the prosecution is not bound to examine every witness specified in the chargesheet and that it is for the prosecution to decide which witnesses are necessary to prove its case.

If the defence considers the testimony of any unexamined witness to be material, it is always open to summon such a witness in defence, the bench said.

The Bench further observed that once the prosecution succeeds in proving the occurrence through reliable eyewitness testimony, the question of motive loses much of its significance.

Since the prosecution had adduced direct evidence establishing the appellant's guilt, the Court held that the absence of proof of motive did not affect the prosecution case.

"Under the circumstances in view of what has been argued and evidence adduced before the learned trial court this Court holds that the appellant acted in a manner with the intention of causing death of the deceased which was an natural outcome of his action therefore we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court Consequently the present appeal is dismissed", the bench concluded

Finding no infirmity in the judgment of conviction or the sentence imposed by the trial court, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court also cancelled the appellant's bail bonds and directed him to surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve the remaining part of his life sentence.

It further directed that in the event of his failure to surrender, the trial court shall issue non-bailable warrants to secure his custody.