Possibility Of Incident Occurring In Spur Of Moment Out Of Sudden Provocation: SC Alters Man’s Conviction In Murder Case

The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000.

The Three-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held,“ From the evidence, as placed on record, it is difficult to come to a finding that the appellant had come with a premeditated mind to kill the deceased".

Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh represented the Appellant while Advocate Vikas Bansal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased, a B.Sc. student, was studying while sitting on the rooftop of a building when Ajai Kumar (accused) called him to come downstairs. When Rajeev went downstairs, the witnesses heard the cries of the deceased after some time. When the witnesses rushed downstairs, they saw the accused causing knife injuries to the deceased.

All of them intervened, apprehended the accused and handed him over to the police. In the meantime, the accused threw his knife in the water tank situated in the premises of the cold storage. For medical treatment, the deceased was taken to a Government Hospital. Since the condition of the deceased was serious, he was taken to another Hospital for further treatment. However, before he could reach the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Both the Trial Court and the High Court held the accused guilty and ordered him to suffer life imprisonment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that what had preceded the assault had not been witnessed by any of the witnesses. Insofar as the motive as recorded by the Trial Judge was concerned, though some suggestions were given by the eyewitnesses about the said motive but they denied the same.

It was further noticed that both the appellant and the deceased were young boys aged about 20-21 years at the time and were having cordial relations. The evidence would also show that whenever the deceased had any difficulties regarding his studies, he would consult the appellant. Ruling out premeditation, the Bench held, “...we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring the case within the meaning of Section 300 of the IPC. The possibility of the incident occurring in the spur of the moment and the appellant assaulting the deceased on account of sudden provocation, due to a sudden fight between them cannot be ruled out. We find that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC.”

Thus, partly allowing the Appeal, the Bench altered the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC to one under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. Considering that the appellant already served the sentence for eight and a half years which with remission amounts to a period of more than ten years, the Court held that the said sentence would sub-serve the ends of justice and directed his release.

Cause Title: Ajai Kumar Chauhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 140)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh, AOR Syed Mehdi Imam, Advocate Raman Yadav, Advocates Akriti Chaturvedi, Priyam Kaushik, R. S. Yadav

Respondent: Advocate Vikas Bansal, AOR Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocate Abhinav Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment