LexSAROJ @ SURAJ PANCHAL & ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 4 S.C.R. 646 SAROJ @ SURAJ PANCHAL & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 2014) APRIL 3, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part I rlw s.34 and s.300, First Exception - There was love affair between 'B' and 'S' - On the C occurrence night, 'S' went to the house of 'B' to meet her - Annoyed by the presence of 'S' in their house in the night, the father and uncle of 'B' (the appellants) and other accused persons beat 'S' and dragged him through the staircase which resulted in injuries to 'S' and ultimately in his death - o Conviction of appellants uls}02 rlw s.34 /PC - Challenge to - Held: Nobody would tolerate an intruder into their house in the night hours - By no means, can it be held to be a case of pre-meditation - It was a case of grave and sudden provocation and would come under the F~t Exception to s.300 /PC - E Death was caused by the acts of the appellants done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death - Conviction of appellants accordingly altered to that u/ s.304 Part I rlw s.34 /PC alongwith 7 years RI. There was love affair between 'S' (the brother of PW1) F and 'B' (the daughter of accused no.1 ). The appellants (accused nos.1 and 3) alongwith two other accused beat 'S' with iron rod and lathi and dragged him through the staircase when he went to the house of 'B' at night to meet her. 'S' died of injuries sustained during the G occurrence. The trial court convicted all the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. In appeal, the High H 646 SAROJ @ SURAJ PANCHAL & ANR. v. STATE OF 647 WEST BENGAL Court affirmed the conviction of accused nos.1 and 3, and A therefore the present appeal by the said two accused. The appellants pleaded before this Court that the occurrence took place on account of sudden provocation and the act was committed by them without 8 premeditation and it would fall under First Exception to Section 300 IPC. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that there was a love c · affair between 'B' and 'S' and it was not liked by the family members of 'B'. On the occurrence night at about 8.00 p.m. 'S' went to the house of 'B' to meet her. Annoyed by the presence of 'S' in the night in their house the appellants and other accused persons beat 'S' and 0 dragged him from the first floor to the ground floor through wooden staircase which resulted in injuries. Nobody would tolerate such an intruder into their house in the night hours. By no means, can it be held to be a case of premeditation and it was a case of grave and E sudden provocation and would come under the First Exception to Section 300 IPC. [Para 8] [651-A-C] Mangesh vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 123: 2011 (1) SCR 72; State of Punjab vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 678: 2011 (9) SCR 494 - referred to. F 2. Looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the circumstances, it can be concluded that the death was caused by the acts of the appellants/ accused done with the intention of causing such bodily G injury as is likely to cause death and therefore the offence would squarely come within the first part of Section 304 IPC and the appellants would be liable to be convicted for the said offence. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A and the sentence of life imprisonment each imposed on them are set aside and instead they are convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous B imprisonment each. [Paras 9, 11] (651-D-E, G-H] Case Law Reference: 2011 (1) SCR 72 2011 (9) SCR 494 referred to referred to Para 8 Para 8 C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 2014. from the Judgment and Order dated 12.05.2008 of the High Court of Calcutta in CRA No. 207 of 2002. D A.K. Chawla (AC) for the Appellant. Anip Sachthey, Shagun Matta for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. no.207 of 2002. 3. The appellants herein are accused nos.1 and 3 F respectively in Sessions Trial Case no.XXX(April) of 2000 on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.