A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava altered the conviction of Tasleem Khan from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, observing that the assault was not premeditated and had occurred on the spur of the moment.

The case arose from an incident on June 3, 2014, when Mukesh Kumar Sao was bathing in the courtyard of his house in Ranchi. According to the prosecution, Tasleem Khan, Afroz Khan and Nagina Khatoon assaulted Mukesh with fists and kicks. It was alleged that Tasleem knocked him down and pressed his foot against his stomach, causing severe abdominal and back pain.

Mukesh lodged a complaint the following day. However, he subsequently died while undergoing medical treatment, following which Section 302 IPC was added to the FIR. The Trial Court convicted Tasleem Khan under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000. The other two accused, Afroz Khan and Nagina Khatoon, were convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment.

Challenging the convictions, the accused approached the High Court. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of Tasleem Khan was that the deceased had undergone surgery and subsequently developed septicaemia, which could have resulted from improper treatment. Examining the evidence, the High Court considered whether the act attributed to Tasleem Khan constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC.

The Bench discussed the distinction between intention and knowledge under the IPC, observing that knowledge of the possible consequences of an act is not necessarily equivalent to an intention that those consequences should occur. The Court also considered Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which concerns sudden fights without premeditation, where the act is committed in the heat of passion without the assailant taking undue advantage or acting cruelly. On examining the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, the Court found that Tasleem Khan was unarmed and that the assault consisted of fist blows and kicks directed towards the deceased's stomach. It further noted that there was no prior enmity between the parties and that the deceased had survived for two days following the incident.

Emphasising the significance of these circumstances in determining the nature of the offence, the Court observed:

“The aforesaid admitted circumstances, particularly the absence of any weapon, the lack of prior enmity, the nature of the assault being limited to fist and kick blows, and the fact that the deceased survived for two days after the occurrence, constitute material factors requiring consideration while assessing the nature of the offence and the extent of criminal liability attributable to the appellant Tasleem Khan.”

The Bench further found that the incident had arisen suddenly from a dispute over the deceased bathing openly in his courtyard, to which the accused had objected on the ground that young girls were residing in their house. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Tasleem Khan intended to cause death so as to attract a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

However, the Bench also found that the injuries inflicted by Tasleem Khan had ultimately resulted in the deceased's death. Consequently, the Court held that the conviction required modification from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Accordingly, the High Court modified the Trial Court's judgment dated June 12, 2017, insofar as Tasleem Khan was concerned, and held him guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.

Appearance:

For the Appellants: Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate

For the Respondent-State: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Special Public Prosecutor