Murder Conviction Reviewed: Supreme Court Orders Premature Release After 20 Years

The Supreme Court of India recently decided an appeal in the case of Suganlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The case involved a tragic family dispute where the appellant was found guilty of murdering his own brother on April 8, 1999. Despite arguments from the defense that the appellant was of unsound mind, the courts, including the High Court, rejected this claim due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The appellant had already spent around 20 years in jail, and considering the nature of the crime—a quarrel between two brothers—the Supreme Court directed the State to consider the appellant’s premature release. Furthermore, the Court ordered that he be released forthwith on a self bond while awaiting the final decision of the State Government.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to April 8, 1999, when the appellant, Suganlal, was accused of murdering his real brother. The prosecution built its case based on the testimony of key witnesses, including PWs 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC, and this conviction was subsequently upheld by the High Court.

Defense Argument

The defense argued that the appellant was a person of unsound mind. However, both the Trial Court and the High Court dismissed this argument due to the lack of supporting evidence. As the Supreme Court noted:

“Though such a contention was raised before the Trial Court, in the absence of any supporting evidence, the Court was not inclined to go into that aspect.”

Supreme Court’s Ruling

Upon reviewing the arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the previous rulings, stating:

“Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides and having gone through the pleadings, we are also not inclined to take a different view.”

However, recognizing that the appellant had already spent two decades in prison, the Court ordered his premature release, subject to the final decision of the State Government. The ruling concluded with:

“Taking into account the fact that the appellant has been in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith on self bond, subject to the final orders to be passed by the State Government.”

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the judiciary’s ability to consider not only legal precedents but also humanitarian aspects. While the conviction remains, the appellant’s extended incarceration and the nature of the crime influenced the Court’s decision to recommend early release. The case underscores the balance between justice and mercy, particularly in cases where family disputes lead to irreversible consequences.

Petitioner Name: Suganlal.
Respondent Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 10-10-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Suganlal vs The State of Madhya Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-10-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 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