SUDHAKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 1169 · Decided: 05-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] B S.C.R. 1169 
SUDHAKAR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1603 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 05, 2012 
rr.s. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part I) - Prosecution of 
accused u/s. 302 - For killing his own son - Mother of C 
deceased and one neighbour witnesses to the incident -
Seizure of weapon of offence, blood-stained clothes of 
accused and bloodstained bed sheets - Report of the 
Chemical Analyst disclosing that blood on the clothes of 
accused matched with blood group of deceased - Mother in o 
her cross-examination stating that the deceased was under 
the influence of liquor and in such condition he used to create 
ruckus in the house - Trial court convicting the accused u/s. 
302 - High Court confirming the conviction - On appeal, held: 
Offence against the accused is conclusively proved - There E 
is nothing to suggest that tnere was premeditation in the mind 
of the accused to cause death - Behavior of the deceased 
under influence of liquor created heat of passion· in the 
accused - Therefore conviction altered to one u/s. 304 (Part 
I) - Sentence of Life Imprisonment altered to period already 
F 
undergone i.e. 8 years. 
The appellant-accused was prosecuted for killing his 
own son by stabbing him. Prosecution case was that 
PW1 (mother of deceased and wife of accused) lodged a 
complaint about the incident. The police seized the G 
clothes of the accused, the knife, blood-stained bed 
sheets in presence of the panch witnesses. PW. 1 in her 
statement before court stated that the deceased was 
1169 
H 
1170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
under influence of liquor and in such condition, he used 
to throw house-hold articles and create a ruckus in the 
house. PW-2 was another witness stated that he had seen 
the accused in front of his house who told him that he 
killed his son. Trial court convicted the accused u/s. 302 
B 
IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of 
Rs. 500/- with default clause. High Court confirmed the 
conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1. It came out in evidence that at the time of 
occurrence, there were only three persons, namely, the 
appellant, P.W.1 and the deceased. Though there is 
variation in the version of P.W.1, as between the 
complaint and her evidence before the court, going by the 
D evidence available on record, the conclusion of the trial 
court that the appellant was responsible for the death of 
the deceased is unassailable. Apart from the exclusive 
presence of the appellant with a weapon in his hand as 
deposed by P.W.2, the other two persons were the 
E 
F 
deceased and P.W.1. The said conclusion of the trial 
court as well as that of the High Court cannot be doubted. 
Further the report of the chemical analysis also disclosed 
that the blood stained clothes of the appellant matched 
with the blood group of the deceased, which were found 
on the clothes of the deceased himself. Therefore, there 
was conclusive proof to hold that it was the appellant who 
was responsible for the single stab injury inflicted upon 
the deceased with the aid of the knife seized under 
Exhibit-47. [Para 8] [1174-F-H; 1175-A-C] 
G 
2. There was nothing to suggest that there was any 
H 
premeditation in the mind of the appellant to cause the 
death of the deceased. Taking into account the statement 
of P.W.1 that the deceased was under the influence of 
liquor and that whenever he was under the influence of 
SUDHAKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
1171 
liquor he used to throw the household articles and create 
A 
a ruckus in the house was a factor which created a heat 
of passion in the appellant who as a father was not in a 
position to tolerate the behaviour of his son whose 
misbehaviour under the influence of liquor was the 
torment. Therefore, unmindful of the consequences, 
B 
though not in a cruel manner, the appellant inflicted a 
single blow which unfortunately caused severe damage 
to the vital organs resulting into the death of the 
deceased. In such circumstances, the offence alleged 
and as found proved against the appellant can be 
C 
brought under the First Part of Section 304 IPC. 
Accordingly, the conviction is altered as falling under 
Section 304 (Part I) IPC in place of Section 302 IPC. [Para 
9) (1175-E-H; 1176-A] 
3. Taking note of the sentence already undergone (8 
D 
years), it is held that the sentence already undergone 
would be

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