PREMCHAND versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 03-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
119
PREMCHAND
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2023)
 MARCH 03, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Penal Code,1860 – ss. 300,302 307 and 304 – The trial Court
convicted the appellant for the offence of murder of the victim-
deceased and attempt to murder three others – The judgment of the
trial Court was challenged by the appellant by preferring appeal
before the High Court – The High Court upheld the judgment of
trial Court – On appeal, held: The trial court and the High Court
did not consider written Statement (Ext. 96) of the appellant u/s
313(5) Cr.P.C. in its entirety, non-consideration of the same has
made the conviction vulnerable to interference – Trial Court failed
to appreciate the defence version as spelt out in the Ext.96, which
appears plausible – There is a missing link in the prosecution case
as to the motive of the appellant to inflict the blow on the victim –
Reading of the contents of Ext.96 does evince an act of retaliation
spurred by sudden provocation resulting in a quarrel as well as a
scuffle which resulted into death of the victim and others injured –
The circumstances clearly negate any suggestion of premeditation
in mind – The trial court lacked in objectivity by not examining the
facts and circumstances as to whether the situation was such as is
likely to reasonably cause an apprehension in the mind of the
appellant that there was imminent danger to his body, of either death
or grievous hurt being caused to him, if he did not act in private
defence – To impute intention to cause death or the intention to
cause that particular injury, which proved fatal, in circumstances
of the case considered as unreasonable – Thus, appellant is entitled
to the benefit of Exception 4 to s. 300, IPC – Conviction for murder
and sentence of life imprisonment set aside – Appellant convicted
u/s. 304, Part II, IPC.
 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – s.313 – Object and scope
discussed.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 119
119
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. This is a case where it does not appear from the
records that the written statement (Ext. 96) engaged the attention
of both the trial court as well as the High Court. Applying the
principles of law, there can be no quarrel that non-consideration
of Ext. 96, to a limited extent, in relation to recording of
conviction and consequently imposition of sentence, has rendered
it vulnerable to interference. [Para 18][129-C-D]
2.By not looking into Ext. 96 with the other evidence on
record, what the trial court omitted to consider is, whether the
prosecution was justified in claiming that the offensive act
amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder or whether
the appellant being guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, deserved punishment under section 304, Part II, IPC.
True it is, the trial court considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellant that (i) he had “exercised his right of private
defence”, and though (ii) “he exceeded such right”, (iii) the present
case at the most would fall under section 304, Part II, IPC; but, it
proceeded to overrule such arguments by relying on the oral
testimony of P.W.s 2 to 4. In the process, the trial court failed to
appreciate the defence version as spelt out in Ext.96, which
appears to us to be plausible. Reading Ext.96 as it is, this Court
found it probable that there could have been provocation at the
instance of the victim, who allegedly indulged in spitting on the
appellant coupled with verbal abuse, whereafter P.W.2 and later
P.W.s 3 and 4 sprang into action, resulting in a scuffle where both
parties indulged in inflicting injuries on each other resulting in
an unwanted loss of life. Regrettably, pointed attention of the
High Court does not appear to have been drawn to Ext.96 by
counsel on behalf of the appellant. [Paras 20 and 21][129-H; 130-
A-E]
3. Though there is no specific admission by the appellant
that he had stabbed the victim or the other injured witnesses,
reading of the contents of Ext.96 does evince an act of retaliation
spurred by sudden provocation resulting in a quarrel as well as a
scuffle which ultimately, most unfortunately, cost the victim his
life and left some others injured. The appellant too sustained
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
121
injuries in the scuffle and there is evidence on record that one of
the injuries was grievous, yet, the criminal law was surprisingly
not set in motion 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.