2002 (1) TMI 1337 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration limited to the nature of the offence.
2. Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34.
3. Dying declaration evidence.
4. Right of private defence.
5. Reduction of offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
6. Application of Article 21 of the Constitution.
7. Benefit extended to co-accused.
8. Alteration of conviction and sentencing of the co-accused.

1. Consideration limited to the nature of the offence:
In this case, the Supreme Court passed an order limiting the consideration to the nature of the offence after granting special leave. The appeal was against the conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 for the murder of an individual. The Court focused on the specific issue of the nature of the offence committed by the accused.

2. Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34:
The trial court convicted all three accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 for the murder of the victim. The High Court acquitted the third accused but upheld the conviction and sentence of the first and second accused. The appellant, the first accused, appealed against this conviction, leading to the Supreme Court's review of the case.

3. Dying declaration evidence:
The Court analyzed the dying declaration of the victim, which detailed the events leading to the fatal attack. The declaration indicated that the appellant inflicted the fatal blow, followed by the second accused, in response to a query made by the deceased regarding a false arrest. The medical evidence supported the sequence of events described in the dying declaration.

4. Right of private defence:
The appellant claimed injuries on his person as evidence of acting in self-defence. However, the Court did not accept this argument based on the minor nature of the injuries observed on the appellant. The Court rejected the contention that the injuries justified exceeding the right of private defence.

5. Reduction of offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC:
Despite the circumstances, the Court decided to reduce the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under the revised section based on the Court's evaluation of the facts and evidence presented.

6. Application of Article 21 of the Constitution:
The Court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring that the second accused, Jabbar, received the same benefit as the appellant in terms of the revised offence and sentencing. This decision was made to uphold principles of justice and fairness, considering the circumstances of the case.

7. Benefit extended to co-accused:
Drawing on legal precedent and the principles of fairness, the Court extended the benefit of reduced offence and sentencing to the co-accused, Jabbar. This decision was based on the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the need to prevent manifest injustice in the legal proceedings.

8. Alteration of conviction and sentencing of the co-accused:
The Court altered the conviction and sentencing of the co-accused, Jabbar, to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, aligning it with the decision made for the appellant. This adjustment was deemed necessary to avoid glaring injustice, especially considering the similarity in the roles of the co-accused in the case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment in this case addressed various legal issues, including the nature of the offence, dying declaration evidence, right of private defence, reduction of offence, application of constitutional provisions, and equitable treatment of co-accused. The Court's decision to alter the conviction and sentencing of both the appellant and the co-accused was guided by principles of justice and fairness, ensuring a balanced outcome in the legal proceedings.