Conviction under Section 302 converted to conviction under Part-I of Section 304 for lack of premeditation: Supreme Court

In Hare Ram Yadav vs. The State of Bihar,  Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V Viswanathan heard the appeal challenging the judgment and order of August 20, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court  in Criminal Appeal by which the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and the order dated January 30, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saran convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. The apex Court observed: "we find that the learned trial Judge as well as the learned High Court have rightly held that it is the appellant who has caused the death of the deceased. Having said so, the next question that will be required to be considered is as to whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC needs to be maintained or altered to a lesser offence."

The Court's judgement dated December 3, 2024 reads:  "A perusal of the evidence would therefore, reveal that there was no premeditation. The incident occurred on account of a quarrel that erupted between the deceased and the appellant on a trivial issue. The appellant appears to have lost his control and assaulted the deceased with the knife. We find that the incident has occurred on account of a grave and sudden fight in the heat of anger due to the provocation by the deceased. A perusal of the evidence would also reveal that it is a case of a single injury. There is no evidence to show that the appellant has acted in a cruel manner or has taken undue advantage of the situation. In that view of the matter, we find that the appellant would be entitled to have the benefit of exception under Section 300 of the IPC."

The judgement concluded: "The conviction of the appellant is converted from Section 302 of the IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. The appellant has already suffered incarceration of about nine years and ten months with remission. We therefore, find that the sentence already undergone by him would subserve the ends of justice. The appellant is therefore, sentenced to the period already undergone. The appellant is, therefore, directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. If the fine as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not paid by him, the same shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today." The judgement was authored by Justice Gavai.