Conviction for Cattle Dispute Altercation Reduced: Supreme Court Revises Judgment

The case of Lakshmi Chand and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around a violent altercation that arose due to a dispute over strayed cattle. The two appellants were initially convicted under Sections 323 read with 34, 324 read with 34, and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to rigorous imprisonment of one year, two years, and eight years, respectively. Additionally, appellant no. 2 was convicted under Section 304 Part II read with 34 IPC for a term of eight years.

Background of the Case

The genesis of the conflict dates back to 15th April 1980, when the bullocks belonging to the appellants strayed into the neighboring compound of the deceased, Prem Lal. In response, Prem Lal drove them out with a lathi, leading to a heated altercation with the accused, Kashmira. Kashmira, who later died, returned to his house and came back armed with a lathi, accompanied by the appellants, who carried an iron rod and a knife.

The altercation escalated, and the appellants allegedly assaulted Prem Lal, resulting in injuries to him and others who intervened. Witnesses, including PW-1 Banarasi and PW-2 Omveer, reported that they retaliated in self-defense using lathis. The appellants subsequently fled from the scene.

Medical Evidence and Cause of Death

Post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. B.K. Mishra (PW-7) revealed that Prem Lal sustained multiple injuries, including abrasions on the abdomen, back, and shoulder, along with two incised wounds on the scapula and the left thigh. The fatal injury was a deep cut in the femoral artery, which led to Prem Lal’s death. Other witnesses, including PW-6 Dr. Ajeet Singh, confirmed that PW-3 and Rajendra Singh had suffered simple injuries caused by a knife and an iron rod.

Arguments by the Appellants

Shri S.R. Singh, senior counsel representing the appellants, put forth the following arguments:

• The injuries suffered by the appellants suggest that they acted in self-defense and were not the aggressors.
• The High Court ruled that there was no common intention between the appellants, meaning each should be responsible for their own actions.
• Since the injuries sustained by PW-2 and Rajendra Singh were simple, the conviction under Section 307 read with 34 IPC was unsustainable.
• The fatal injury suffered by Prem Lal was not inflicted with an intent to kill but was instead an accidental consequence of the scuffle.
• Had the appellants intended to kill, they would not have fled the scene without ensuring the act was completed.
• The sentence of eight years was excessive for a dispute that arose suddenly over strayed cattle.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh)

Opposing the appeal, the State contended:

• The conviction of the appellants was appropriate given the nature of the assault.
• Appellant no. 2 inflicted the fatal injury that severed the femoral artery, leading to Prem Lal’s death.
• The injuries on PW-2 and Rajendra Singh included head injuries, a vital area of the body, justifying the conviction under Section 307 read with 34 IPC.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court considered the submissions of both sides and carefully examined the circumstances of the assault. The Court observed:

• “The occurrence undoubtedly took place on the spur of the moment without premeditation.”
• “It cannot be said that the appellants had any common intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely to ensue.”
• “The appellants only intended to vent their ire against their neighbor for having assaulted their bullocks.”
• “If there existed no common intention, each appellant was liable for his own individual acts.”

Supreme Court’s Judgment

Based on the above findings, the Court ruled:

• The conviction under Sections 323 read with 34 and 324 read with 34 IPC was upheld.
• The conviction under Section 307 read with 34 IPC was set aside, as the injuries suffered by PW-2 and Rajendra Singh were simple in nature.
• The conviction of appellant no. 2 under Section 304 Part II IPC was upheld.
• The sentence for appellant no. 2 under Section 304 Part II IPC was reduced from eight years to two years, considering that the dispute was a spontaneous altercation over cattle that strayed into the deceased’s premises.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies the distinction between intentional murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The ruling establishes that:

• Not all fatal injuries should be treated as murders if they occur spontaneously in an unplanned altercation.
• Common intention must be established clearly before attributing collective liability under Section 34 IPC.
• Sentencing should reflect the context of the crime and not just the outcome of the injuries.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Lakshmi Chand and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the necessity of assessing criminal liability based on intent and circumstances. While the appellants were held responsible for their actions, the Court recognized that the altercation was spontaneous and without premeditation, leading to the reduction of the sentence for appellant no. 2. This ruling serves as an important precedent in cases involving sudden provocation and unintended fatal consequences.

Petitioner Name: Lakshmi Chand and Another.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Navin Sinha, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 24-08-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Lakshmi Chand and An vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category