Murder Conviction in Barking Dog Dispute: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in 37-Year-Old Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a long-standing criminal case involving a dispute that escalated into a violent altercation, ultimately leading to the death of one person. The case, titled The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Tribhuwan & Ors., revolved around a murder conviction arising from an incident that began over a pet dog barking at a passerby. This judgment clarifies important aspects of criminal sentencing, the application of Section 325 IPC, and the legal principle of sentence reduction due to prolonged litigation.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a violent altercation in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, on June 14, 1980. According to the prosecution, the accused, Tribhuwan and five others, were involved in an attack on the victim, Ram Lagan, and another person, Baij Nath. The dispute began when Tribhuwan, while passing by Ram Lagan’s house, was barked at by a pet dog. Infuriated, he engaged in a verbal altercation with the family members, threatening to retaliate.

Shortly afterward, Tribhuwan returned with five other accused, Sita Ram, Ram Suresh, Rajendra, Ram Vijay, and Jogendra, armed with weapons such as pistols, lathis, spears, and farsas. They launched an attack on the victims, causing grievous injuries. Ram Lagan succumbed to his injuries in the hospital, while Baij Nath survived.

Trial and Conviction

Following an investigation, the six accused were tried before the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. On January 22, 1982, the trial court acquitted Jogendra but convicted the remaining five under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Ram Vijay – Convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Tribhuwan – Convicted under Sections 324/149 IPC, 325/149 IPC, and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment.
Sita Ram – Convicted under Sections 324/149 IPC, 325/149 IPC, and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment.
Ram Suresh and Rajendra – Convicted under Sections 147 IPC, 324/149 IPC, and 325/149 IPC, and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment.

Appeal Before the Allahabad High Court

All five convicted accused challenged their sentences before the Allahabad High Court. The State of Uttar Pradesh did not file any cross-appeal against the acquittal of Jogendra or the lesser sentences given to the others.

The High Court partially allowed the appeal and altered the convictions as follows:

Ram Vijay – Conviction under Section 302 IPC reduced to 304 Part I IPC, and sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
Tribhuwan – The four-year imprisonment was set aside and replaced with a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Sita Ram, Ram Suresh, and Rajendra – Their four-year sentences were also replaced with fines.

State’s Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the High Court’s decision to remove the jail sentence of Tribhuwan, arguing that Section 325 IPC mandates both imprisonment and a fine.

Petitioner’s Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The prosecution argued that:

The High Court erred in completely removing the jail sentence of Tribhuwan while upholding his conviction under Section 325 IPC.
Under Section 325 IPC, a person convicted must be sentenced to imprisonment, which may extend up to seven years, along with a fine.
The Sessions Judge had correctly awarded four years of rigorous imprisonment, which should have been upheld or modified, but not removed.
The High Court’s ruling weakened deterrence in criminal law.

Respondent’s Arguments (Tribhuwan)

The defense countered:

Tribhuwan had already served 40 days in jail during trial and appeal, and that should be considered sufficient punishment.
The case had dragged on for over 37 years, and making Tribhuwan serve more time would be unfair given the long litigation.
Under Section 428 CrPC, any time spent in detention during the trial should be deducted from the final sentence.
The High Court had considered the lack of direct evidence linking Tribhuwan to the fatal injuries.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the lengthy litigation, agreed that the High Court had erred in completely setting aside the jail sentence. The Court ruled:

“The High Court, in our view, ought to have either upheld the award of jail sentence or reduced it to a reasonable term. It had no jurisdiction to set aside the entire sentence.”
“Since the respondent has already served 40 days in jail, that period should be treated as the awarded jail sentence.”
“Given the prolonged litigation of 37 years and the lack of conclusive evidence linking him to the fatal injury, we find it justifiable to award a sentence equal to time already served.”
“The conviction under Section 325 IPC is upheld, and the sentence is set at 40 days imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000.”

The Supreme Court ordered the Sessions Court to verify if the fine had already been paid. If paid, Tribhuwan would not have to serve additional time.

Key Takeaways

The ruling confirms that under Section 325 IPC, both imprisonment and a fine are mandatory.
Long litigation periods can influence sentencing decisions, especially when the accused has already served some time in jail.
The Court aims to balance deterrence and justice, ensuring that individuals do not suffer excessive punishment due to procedural delays.
Legal principles of set-off under Section 428 CrPC were upheld, allowing time already spent in jail to be counted toward the final sentence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case highlights the significance of fair sentencing and judicial efficiency. While upholding the principle of punishment for grievous hurt, the Court also took into account the impact of prolonged legal proceedings on the accused. This judgment serves as an important precedent in criminal law, reinforcing the balance between justice and humane sentencing.

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

Download Judgment: State of Uttar Prade vs Tribhuwan & Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2017
See all petitions in 2017 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