Murder Conviction Restored: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Ruling in Uttar Pradesh Case

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in a criminal appeal involving a murder conviction. The case involved the State of Uttar Pradesh appealing against the decision of the High Court, which had reduced the sentence of the accused from life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to ten years under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The Supreme Court, after thorough deliberation, reinstated the life sentence and emphasized the necessity of strict legal interpretation in cases of murder.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an incident on 22nd March 2000, when a Panchayat was held at the residence of Kanhai to resolve a dispute between Nokhey and the accused, Faquirey. During the Panchayat, the complainant’s son, Rakesh, arrived at the scene from his agricultural field. Upon seeing Rakesh, the accused accused him of having an ‘evil eye’ on his wife and immediately declared his intent to kill him before the Panchayat could settle the dispute. Encouraged by his younger brother Santosh, the accused pulled out a pistol and shot Rakesh, who succumbed to the firearm injuries on the spot.

The post-mortem report confirmed that Rakesh had suffered a gunshot wound on his back, with multiple metallic pellets embedded in his chest cavity, causing extensive damage to his ribs and lungs. The cause of death was determined to be hemorrhagic shock due to the firearm injury.

Trial Court Conviction

The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, including statements from the complainant Bahadur (PW-1) and another witness (PW-2). Based on the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000. However, Santosh was acquitted due to a lack of direct involvement.

High Court’s Ruling and Reduction of Sentence

The accused appealed against the conviction in the High Court. There was no challenge on the merits of the case, but the defense argued that the act fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, which deals with ‘grave and sudden provocation.’ The High Court agreed with this argument and altered the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC), reducing the sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

State of Uttar Pradesh’s Appeal

• The state contended that the High Court had erroneously applied Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
• The accused had a premeditated motive to kill Rakesh, and the act was not a result of grave and sudden provocation.
• The first proviso to Exception 1 states that provocation should not be sought voluntarily or used as an excuse for committing the offense, which the High Court overlooked.

Defense Arguments

• The defense maintained that the accused acted in the heat of the moment after seeing the deceased, who he suspected of inappropriate conduct toward his wife.
• The accused had already served ten years in prison, and sending him back to jail would be harsh.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court and observed the following:

• The accused did not act in self-defense but out of a prior grudge.
• Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC applies only when the provocation is sudden and not sought voluntarily. In this case, the accused turned his attention to Rakesh and killed him without any direct provocation from the victim.
• “No overt act is alleged against the deceased by which it can be stated that the Respondent was provoked. From the proved facts of this case, it appears that the provocation was voluntary on the part of the offender.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s judgment flawed and set it aside, reinstating the original conviction of the trial court under Section 302 IPC. The accused was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence of life imprisonment.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the principle that courts must strictly interpret the law in cases of murder. The ruling highlights that voluntary provocation does not mitigate the severity of a crime and reinforces the importance of upholding justice by ensuring that heinous crimes do not receive leniency under incorrect legal interpretations.

Petitioner Name: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Faquirey.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-02-2019.

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 Faquirey Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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