Recently, the Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of a man in his 80s, who was convicted for a death during a 1992 village clash, to the time he has already spent in jail.

A division bench of Justices N. V. Anjaria and K. Vinod Chandran upheld Shrikrishna’s conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC for a death during a 1992 village clash but reduced his sentence to the time he has already served, considering his age of over 80 years.

The incident took place on December 10, 1992, in Village Dudankhedi, Madhya Pradesh, after a quarrel between the sons of the accused and the deceased, Ram Singh. When Ram Singh went to question the accused about the assault on his son, a clash broke out between the two groups. During the fight, Ram Singh was hit on the head with a stick and died the next day while receiving treatment.

The Court convicted Shrikrishna and others of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Later, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, ruling that the incident was a sudden fight without a common plan, and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part II, noting that the clash arose from a sudden quarrel without premeditation or intent to kill, making the act culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Considering Shrikrishna’s advanced age of over 80, the Court reduced his sentence to the period he has already served.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, which modified the conviction for murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

“For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC is justified and warrants no interference. It is sustained.”, the court observed.

In 1997, the trial court convicted Shrikrishna under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court later held that the incident was a sudden fight without premeditation or common purpose, changed the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, and reduced the sentence to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine.

Challenging this, Shrikrishna approached the Supreme Court. Upholding the High Court’s decision, Justice Anjaria observed that the convict did not have the intention to kill, though he knew the injury could cause death. Therefore, the act amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, and there was no reason for the Supreme Court to interfere.

“The way as the sequence of events happened in the instant case and since the offence by the appellant was committed in the midst of commotion and group clash, it could be legitimately inferred that the appellant acted without any premeditation as such to cause the death of Ram Singh, although in eye of law, having regard to the kind of weapon used and the nature of injury inflicted, which corresponded to the weapon used, knowledge could be inferred in law. Even according to the prosecution, the incident occurred when the deceased came to the house of the appellant, to question him, when some others also gathered and there was a free fight. In fact, the appellant suffered serious injuries to his head in the same transaction.”, the court said.

Considering that the appellant was an elderly man, the Court, showing sensitivity, reduced his sentence to the period he had already served.

“The appellant is more than 80 years of age at present. Since the appellant is an old and aged person, and in the December of his life, it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind the bars again at this stage. The courts are not supposed to be insensitive. Therefore, in view of the advanced age of the appellant and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, IPC, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to what is already undergone, to be substituted accordingly.”, the court said.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.

Cause Title: SHRIKRISHNA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearances:

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Aftab Ali Khan (AOR), Amicus Curiae Mr. Pranav Giri, Advocates Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Mr. Jay Nirupam, Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, and Mr. Ritik Sharma.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. B.P. Singh (D.A.G.), Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh Ga, Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, and AOR.