SANKATH PRASAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 10-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
SANKATH PRASAD
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2020)
JANUARY 10, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and s.304 Part-I – Conversion of
conviction u/s. 302 IPC to s.304 Part-I IPC – Held: The facts, as
they have emerged from the record, indicate that the incident had
taken place on the spur of the moment and was a fallout of an
altercation over the excavation of a mound by the brother of the
appellant – This was objected to by the complainant – The altercation
resulted in the appellant going into his house and bringing out a
country made pistol – The son of the complainant - who is the
deceased - intervened in the course of the altercation and was fired
at resulting in a single fire arm injury leading to his death –
Considering the circumstances of the case, the conviction u/s. 302
IPC converted to one u/s. 304 Part-I.
The complainant noticed brother of the appellant getting a
mound dug on a disputed plot. The appellant intervened in the
altercation and there was an exchange of words. The appellant
rushed to his house and returned with a country made pistol.
The son of the complainant caught hold of the appellant from
behind and got shot by the appellant. The son of the complainant
succumbed to his injuries. The appellant was convicted u/s. 302
by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court dismissed the
appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
50 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2546 of 1987.
Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Ms. Ashmita Bisarya, Advs. for the
Appellant.
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1002
1002
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1003
Vishnu Shankar Jain, Shreyas Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 5 September
2017. The High Court, by its decision, dismissed Criminal Appeal No
2546 of 1987 filed by the appellant in order to challenge his conviction of
an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 18601 by the
IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Fathepur in Sessions Trial No 59 of 1986.
The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
3. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place at 8.45
am on 25 August 1985. Gaya Prasad (PW 1), who is the complainant,
was returning home after answering a call of nature. When he reached
the disputed plot while passing through the Chak road, he noticed that
Durga Prasad, the brother of the appellant, was getting a mound dug
with the help of two labourers, one of whom was Ram Nath (PW 2).
When the complainant objected, Durga Prasad is alleged to have stated
that he was not committing any wrong. At that point, the appellant
intervened in the altercation and there was an exchange of words. The
appellant rushed to his house and returned with a country made pistol.
While he was aiming a shot at the complainant Gaya Prasad (PW 1),
Uma Shanker, the son of the complainant, caught hold of the appellant
from behind. The appellant managed to free himself and shot Uma
Shanker who fell down as a consequence of a fire arm injury. Uma
Shanker succumbed to his injuries.
4. The eye-witness account of the occurrence was based on the
depositions of the complainant Gaya Prasad (PW 1) and Ram Nath
(PW 2). Both these witnesses deposed about the incident. Both the
Sessions Court and, in appeal, the High Court have relied upon the
evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Taking cognizance of the fact that PW 1 is a
father of the deceased, the High Court, on a careful evaluation of his
testimony, found no reason to discredit his account. The High Court held
that the presence of PW 1 was natural, having regard to the time and
place of the incident. Moreover, PW 1 did not implicate Durga Prasad in
SANKATH PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
1 IPC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
the crime despite his presence which was an indicator of the fact that he
had given a truthful account of the actual incident. The ocular evidence
was supported by the medical evidence and by the evidence of the doctor
(PW 4) who opined that the ante-mortem injury could have been caused
by a gun. The post mortem report indicated one 

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