M A I N   N E W S

SC lays down criteria to escape murder conviction

New Delhi, May 29
An accused can escape conviction for murder if he proves that there was no premeditation for the act, occurred in a heat of passion, no cruelty involved and undue advantage taken, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A Bench of Justices Asok Kumar Ganguly and Deepak Verma in a judgment said the accused can seek immunity from murder only if all these four above circumstances are established in defence of the crime.

“In order to bring a case under Exception (4) to Section 300 of the IPC, the evidence must show that the accused acted without any premeditation and in a heat of passion and without having taken undue advantage and he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner,” said Justice Ganguly.

“Every one of these circumstances is required to be proved to attract Exception (4) to Section 300 of the IPC and it is not sufficient to prove only some of them. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent,” he added.

The apex court passed the judgment while setting aside a Rajasthan High Court verdict, which had altered the conviction of Mohd Islam for murder (Section 302) to 304 (11) on the grounds that the crime committed by him fell under Exception 4 provided under Section 300 of the IPC.

The High Court had reversed the life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court in Deeg to six years which had earlier held him guilty for murdering one Jenu on March 18, 1988 following an altercation over a financial dispute.

The Rajasthan Government had appealed against the ruling in the apex court.

The apex court expressed surprise at the manner in which the High Court had altered the conviction despite evidence clearly indicating that there was a premeditation on Islam’s part to commit the crime as he went to his house and came back with a ‘farsa’(a type of axe) to hit the victim. “After attending the assembly in which there was a minor scuffle, Islam admittedly went to his house and came back armed with a ‘farsa’ which is a deadly weapon. Thereafter, he hit the deceased repeatedly on the head, a vital part of human body, with it farsa and caused very grievous injuries.

“It may be true that initially there was no premeditation or intention of the respondent no 1 (Islam) but it is well settled that intention can develop on the spot and in the instant case, there is some amount of pre-meditation on the part of respondent no 1 when he had gone to his house and came back to the place of occurrence armed with a deadly weapon. And in furtherance of that intention, struck the deceased with that weapon repeatedly and at a vital part of his body,” the Bench said. — PTI