Modification of Punishment for Convicts Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Case Name - Hare Ram Yadav Vs. State of Bihar
Case Number - Criminal Appeal No. 4952 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14289 of 2024]
Date-
Quorum- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Facts of the case
The case involves a event that took place in Manjhi, Bihar, on November 9, 2015. Lilawati Devi, the wife of the informant, Ranglal Yadav , got into a furious altercation with Hare Ram Yadav, a tenant. The dispute arose over the removal of bricks belonging to Yadav , which lead to a conflict between them.
During the heat of the argumnet , Lilawati , the wife of the informant provoked the accused by giving derogatory remakrs . After getting provoked Hare Ram Yadav stabbed the Lilawati and later during treatment she died.
FIR was lodged and Yadav was arrested . The trial court gave the judgment as Hare Ram yadav is convicted u/s 302 of IPC.
Later Patna High Court uphled the judgemnt of the session court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
Appeal was filed by Hare Ram yadav to Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court.
Legal Issue
Whether the witnesses are credible or not ?
Whether there was a pre- intention to stabb the Lilawati or it was just done in heat of the argument ?
Legal Provision
Section 300 of IPC- Definition of Murder and Culpable Homicide
Section 302 of IPC- Punishment for the murder
Section 304 of IPC- Punishment for Culpable Homicide
ARGUMENTS
By Appellant
Argued that all the witnesses are inclined towards the Respondent ,hence it is biased as they are the relatives of the deceased. He further argue that from the oral testimony of the witnesses, there is no more evidence to compromise the present appellant. He submits that even the alleged knife which is stated to be used in the crime has not been recovered. Also argued that this case doesn’t fall under the Section 302 of IPC because Accused didn’t pre intended to stab the knife to Lilawati. Incident happened on the provocation of the deceased.
By Respondent
Opposes the appeal. He submits that there are five eyewitnesses which consistently involve the present appellant. He submits that the injury was on the chest which is a vital body part therefore the appellant must be punished under Section 302 of the IPC.
He therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court lessen the Hare Ram Yadav’s conviction to Section 304 IPC, sentencing him that the period which has already served (over nine years )in custody will not be counted again. It directed him to immediate release. The court also allowed Yadav two weeks to pay any pending fines imposed by the Trial Court.
CONCLUSION
In the significant ruling, the Supreme court observed that the incident happened with the grave and sudden provocation and reduced the life imprisionment time spam
Therefore Apex Court Altered only the punishment span not the verdict or judgment.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: ADV AYANTIKA MONDAL
