Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 08-11-2019 in case of petitioner name Awadhesh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anoth
| |

Supreme Court Restores Murder Conviction: Accused Ordered to Surrender in UP Homicide Case

On November 8, 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reinstating the conviction of Ravinder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved the shooting of a woman, Lajjawati, following an altercation. The Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which had downgraded the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, ruling that the act constituted murder.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to July 11, 2006, when the complainant, Awadhesh Kumar, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the Khiri Police Station, Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. He alleged that his mother, Lajjawati, had been shot by Ravinder following an argument. The confrontation occurred when Lajjawati complained about the inappropriate behavior of the accused’s nephew, Vishun Kumar. Present at the scene were Vishun Kumar, Sudhir @ Ramaudh, Rakesh, and Ravinder.

The complainant claimed that while his mother was making her complaint, the accused started quarreling with her. His brother Anoop Kumar and father Ram Lakhan arrived at the scene, attempting to diffuse the situation. However, according to the FIR, the accused persons, including Vishun Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, incited Ravinder to fire at Lajjawati. In response, Ravinder shot her using a country-made firearm.

Legal Proceedings

The case initially began under Sections 307, 504, and 506 IPC, but upon Lajjawati’s death, it was converted into a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court found Ravinder guilty under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment while acquitting the other accused.

Ravinder appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which in 2015 altered his conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The High Court ruled that the act was committed in the “heat of passion” and lacked premeditation, thereby falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner’s Arguments (Awadhesh Kumar)

  • The accused fired at the victim from a close range, causing fatal injuries.
  • The act fell under Clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC, making it a clear case of murder.
  • There was no sudden fight or grave provocation from the deceased to justify the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
  • The accused’s actions showed a clear intent to kill, as he declared he had no fear due to a previous conviction before firing.
  • The High Court erred in applying Exception 4 since the deceased was unarmed and did not retaliate.

Respondent’s Arguments (Ravinder)

  • The altercation happened in the heat of the moment, and there was no premeditated intent to kill.
  • The High Court was correct in applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as the crime was not planned.
  • The shooting took place suddenly following an argument, making it a case of culpable homicide, not murder.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the findings of the trial court and the High Court and analyzed the evidence thoroughly. The key observations of the Court were:

  • The accused had ample time to cool down before the shooting, as there was a gap of about 30 minutes between the initial argument and the act of firing.
  • The accused made a deliberate statement before shooting, declaring that he had no fear due to a prior conviction.
  • None of the victim’s family members were armed, and there was no mutual fight or provocation that could justify Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
  • Firing a country-made firearm from close range indicated a clear knowledge that it would cause death, thereby fulfilling the conditions of Clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC.
  • The accused took undue advantage by using a deadly weapon against an unarmed woman.

The Court relied on previous judgments, including State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shivshankar (2014) 10 SCC 366 and Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade vs. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 330, which held that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies only in cases of sudden fight where both parties exchange blows.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“Considering the material/evidence on record, we are of the firm opinion that the case falls under Clause Fourthly to Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the Trial Court was right in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.”

Accordingly, the Court:

  • Quashed the High Court’s order modifying the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC.
  • Restored the Sessions Court’s judgment convicting Ravinder under Section 302 IPC.
  • Ordered Ravinder to surrender before the trial court within three months to serve his life sentence.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment sets a strong precedent on the application of Section 300 IPC in cases where there is clear intent or knowledge of causing death. The ruling reinforces that:

  • Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC does not apply when the victim is unarmed, and the accused takes undue advantage.
  • Using a firearm from close range indicates intent to kill.
  • Provocation must be grave and sudden for Exception 4 to apply, which was absent in this case.
  • Courts must exercise caution before reducing murder convictions under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Awadhesh Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another upholds the importance of strict legal interpretations in murder cases. By reinstating the murder conviction, the Court reaffirmed that crimes involving firearms from close range without grave provocation do not qualify for leniency under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The ruling serves as a warning against misapplying legal exceptions in serious offenses and ensures that justice is served.


Petitioner Name: Awadhesh Kumar.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Another.
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M. R. Shah, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Place Of Incident: Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 08-11-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Awadhesh Kumar vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-11-2019.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 Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 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

Similar Posts